ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The Secretary of State was asked—

UK Energy Sources (Subsidy)

Douglas Carswell: What steps his Department plans to take to reduce the overall subsidy to UK energy sources.

Amber Rudd: The Government recognise the hon. Gentlemen’s point regarding the impact on taxpayers and consumers of Government support for renewable and low-carbon energy. However, Government policies are also aimed at reducing bills. Without Government policies, particularly on energy efficiency, bills would overall be on average around £90 higher this year.

Douglas Carswell: Yesterday the Prime Minister confirmed that he is happy to see the levy control framework increase to £371 per year per household by 2020. At a time of falling oil prices and at a time when the shale gas revolution holds out the tantalising prospect of cheap energy, is not the Department carrying on subsidising windmills unnecessarily, and are we not making policy on the basis of outdated assumptions that need to revised?

Amber Rudd: We recognise the importance of keeping bills down for consumers, particularly when times are difficult, but this Government’s initiatives are to help reduce bills and our support for renewables is unquestionable. We feel it is essential to have some subsidy to get renewables going. I note that the hon. Gentleman is a big supporter of solar. Those costs have come down and our support has consequently come down. We expect it to reach grid parity by 2020. We are optimistic that wind farms are also beginning to come down in cost, and we have seen a 10% reduction in the support for them very recently.

Gregory Barker: Does my hon. Friend agree that linking oil prices to energy, and particularly heating bills, is nonsense given that we do not have any oil generation to speak of that generates electricity here in the UK—there is only maybe a tenuous
	link with heating oil? We should be focusing on driving down the cost of home-grown energy, particularly clean energy.

Amber Rudd: As always, my right hon. Friend makes an important point. Renewable electricity is essential, and I hope his Christmas tree lights burn even brighter this year, because 15% of that will indeed be from renewable energy, which is twice as much as under the last Government.

Alan Whitehead: At a recent conference, a Treasury official, when asked about the levy control framework, said:
	“A priority for the next Government is to review what should happen after 2021.”
	He also said that he would hope to get clarity early in the next Parliament about what should happen, rather towards the end of it, and that:
	“We shouldn’t sprint towards a cliff edge.”
	Is that the Minister’s position on the levy control framework, or is she sitting there doing nothing about it?

Amber Rudd: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that those decisions are largely for the next Government. However, the levy control framework is an important part of controlling our expenditure. It is a classic example of the competence under this Government, as opposed to the chaos under the last, who had no levy control framework at all.

Kerry McCarthy: The Prime Minister said at the Liaison Committee this week that his party would scrap subsidies for onshore wind after 2015 and he did not expect any more to be erected without subsidy, but onshore wind is one of the cheapest forms of green energy. Does the Minister not agree that an essential part of trying to reduce energy bills is having onshore wind as part of the mix?

Amber Rudd: Onshore wind has been an important part of the mix and, of course, we have more onshore wind in this country than in the rest of the world, so I think that it may be time for us to spend our scarce resources on other types of renewables to ensure the best return for taxpayers.

Caroline Flint: One of the technologies we provide support to is carbon capture and storage. Is the Minister aware that UKIP is opposed to carbon capture and storage? It has described it as “expensive, difficult and pointless”. Does she agree with me that UKIP’s policy would mean that there is no long-term future at all for any of Britain’s coal mines or coal-fired power stations?

Amber Rudd: I share the right hon. Lady’s views on this. Carbon capture and storage is indeed an important part of our energy mix and an important part of supporting all energy sources in this country.

Energy Bills

Alan Reid: What recent steps he has taken to help households with energy bills.

Nia Griffith: What steps he is taking to help households with energy bills.

Andy Sawford: What steps he is taking to help households with energy bills.

Kate Green: What steps he is taking to help households with energy bills.

Grahame Morris: What steps he is taking to help households with energy bills.

Edward Davey: Mr Speaker, with permission I will answer this question with questions 3, 7, 10, 15 and 16.
	There are three main ways in which we help people with their energy bills: first, with money, to help vulnerable customers with their energy bills with policies like the winter fuel payment, the warm home discount and cold weather payments; secondly, by helping people save energy and so cut their bills with policies like energy efficiency, product regulations, the energy company obligation and the green deal; and, thirdly, by making our energy markets more competitive, where our reforms have seen the market share of smaller independent companies grow from less than 1% in 2010 to 10% today, enabling people to save hundreds of pounds on their bills by switching supplier.

Alan Reid: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State may have been reading from an old list. It is important to have an updated list, and he ought to be able to look to people to provide him with an updated list. This is very unsatisfactory. The grouping is with 6, 9, 14 and 15. We really must get these things right.

Alan Reid: The price of oil has been coming down quite dramatically in recent weeks. This opens up the prospect of lower prices, particularly for people who live off the gas grid. What is he doing to ensure that companies selling to those consumers bring their prices down to help them with their heating bills this winter?

Edward Davey: First, Mr Speaker, I apologise for not getting the list of questions right. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) makes a good point. We expect heating oil companies to pass on the savings they are making. They do not hedge in the way that electricity and gas companies do in relation to the long-term forward markets; I understand that heating oil forward purchases are done on a much shorter time scale. We would therefore expect reductions in the price of oil to be fed through much more quickly.

Nia Griffith: It is all very well to talk about making the energy companies reduce their bills, but does the Secretary of State not agree that it would be a lot more effective if the regulator had the power to force them to bring prices down, as Labour is proposing?

Edward Davey: Actually, it was the last Labour Government who got rid of price regulation from the regulatory tool book. This Government have supported the referral of the energy market to the independent competition
	authorities. That is a policy that the last Government—and the present Leader of the Opposition when he was doing my job—failed to pursue.

Andy Sawford: Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the annual fuel poverty statistics report, which shows that the fuel poverty gap—the difference between people’s bills and what they can afford—has grown to £480 in 2014? That is a shockingly worrying statistic, and the real story behind it is being told in the homes in our communities. Does he agree that it is now time to back Labour’s energy market reforms?

Edward Davey: Fuel poverty needs to be tackled thoroughly, which is why we are bringing forward ambitious fuel poverty targets and a new fuel poverty strategy. Opposition Members should note that fuel poverty has actually fallen under this Government, whereas it rose under the last Government. That suggests that we should not be taking advice on energy policy from the Labour party.

Kate Green: Households with a disabled member have high fuel poverty levels, but working-age disabled people are not always able to access warm home discount schemes. In bringing forward a fuel poverty strategy, what will the Secretary of State do to ensure that that vulnerable group is protected?

Edward Davey: We have a whole panoply of measures to help vulnerable people, as I set out in my original answer. Some of the wider policies that we are implementing, particularly those relating to competition, are helping people across the board. We are in discussions with other Government Departments, particularly the Department for Work and Pensions, in relation to the point that the hon. Lady has raised.

Grahame Morris: It is not just heating oil prices that have fallen. Wholesale gas and electricity prices have fallen significantly in the past year, yet consumers have seen little reduction in their bills. Does the Secretary of State now regret voting against Labour’s motion on 18 June, which would have given powers to the regulator to ensure that when wholesale costs fell, the reductions were passed on to the consumer?

Edward Davey: It is interesting to look at the history of wholesale prices coming down and reductions not being passed on. There were much greater falls in wholesale costs when the Leader of the Opposition was doing my job, and they were never passed on. This Government have taken action by giving consumers far greater choice. They can now switch from companies that are not offering them a good deal and, in some cases, cut their bills by hundreds of pounds.

David Nuttall: Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way for the Government to keep energy bills down is to stop subsidising working windmills? We are now subsidising those that are providing energy when the windmills are not working. Instead, we should get cracking with fracking.

Edward Davey: That is a good soundbite, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that his understanding of how these things work needs a little work. It is important that we have an energy mix. That encourages greater
	competition as well as enabling us to tackle all our energy objectives, including keeping bills down and ensuring that we cut carbon and have secure energy.

Mark Pawsey: The Minister is right to say that the number of households in fuel poverty has fallen every year since this Government came to power in 2010. However, those who are affected the most are the poorest families living in energy-inefficient homes. Will he tell us what steps are being taken to help that vulnerable group of people?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; energy-efficiency should be at the heart of our policies. Our new fuel poverty target is focused on energy-efficiency for the very reasons he outlined. I can tell him, and announce to the House today, that up to October this year the green deal and the energy companies obligation have together led to more than 1 million energy-efficiency measures being installed, producing permanent reductions in energy bills, this Christmas and every Christmas.

Anne McIntosh: I wish to place on the record the contribution of the warm home discount scheme to Thirsk, Malton and Filey. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been particularly ill-advised to have frozen energy prices at the time a certain party was recommending that policy?

Edward Davey: Indeed, one danger of the regulatory approach is not only that it discourages investment and reduces competition, but that one can freeze prices at a high level. The benefits of competition and falling wholesale prices will mean that bills will come down—indeed, people can save on their bills through the competition we have stimulated.

Jonathan Reynolds: Members on both sides of the House recognise that some of the households with the highest bills are in the private rented sector, where we simply have to raise standards. We want to go further than the coalition, but the Secretary of State has repeatedly assured us that the coalition Government will act to improve the very worst homes by 2018. May I therefore ask him, straightforwardly, whether this Government will introduce the regulations on the private rented sector before the end of this Parliament? If not, why not?

Edward Davey: I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that it is very important to get energy-efficiency in the private rented sector—something that the previous Government failed to act on. We have legislated in the Energy Act 2011, we have consulted on this and we will be making proposals.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Tom Harris. He is not here. I call Mr David Jones.

Tidal Lagoons

David Jones: What assessment he has made of the potential contribution of tidal lagoons to the UK’s energy supply.

Kevin Brennan: What recent assessment he has made of the potential of tidal power as an energy source.

Amber Rudd: Tidal energy offers huge potential. Tidal lagoons alone could provide for up to 8% of the UK’s energy needs. To help with progress of tidal deployment, as part of the autumn statement, we announced a commitment to starting closer discussions with Tidal Lagoons Ltd to establish potential at Swansea bay. In addition, we have made a number of studies of UK tidal potential.

Mr Speaker: I call Tom Harris. Sorry, I meant Mr David Jones. There is a similarity.

David Jones: Others have remarked upon it, Mr Speaker. It is good news that the Government are in discussions with the proposed developers of the Swansea tidal lagoon. Does my hon. Friend agree that proposals for a much larger lagoon at Colwyn bay also merit serious consideration? Does she also agree that a chain of lagoons along the west coast could make a huge contribution to British energy security?

Amber Rudd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. As he rightly says, tidal power provides a huge opportunity for the UK. My Department has started to explore the potential for a future lagoon programme and is aware of proposals for the tidal lagoons at Colwyn bay. Any such scheme will need to demonstrate strong evidence of value for money, economic benefits, energy saving and environmental impact mitigation before the Government could take a view on its potential, but I share his enthusiasm.

Kevin Brennan: May I say merry Christmas to everyone, Mr Speaker? That should help climate change because I do not have to send out cards now. How are the Government’s talks on the Swansea tidal lagoon, which were announced during the autumn statement, progressing? As part of the studies that the Government are undertaking, are they working with the Welsh Government to look at proposals for a possible tidal lagoon, again on a larger scale, between Cardiff and Newport?

Amber Rudd: May I also exchange Christmas greetings with the hon. Gentleman? We are doing our best to progress with the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. He will be aware that there is only so much the Government can say at this stage, because there are other issues to consider. We will continue to keep an open mind to as many opportunities as possible, as long as we can reassure ourselves that there are clear economic benefits.

Energy Companies Obligation

Jeremy Lefroy: What progress his Department has made on the energy companies obligation initiative.

Amber Rudd: The latest Department official statistics show that we are getting closer to reaching our target of delivering energy-efficiency measures to 1 million homes. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we have already reached 1 million measures. In addition, legislation came into force in
	early December to help simplify the scheme and reduce costs. This has enabled energy suppliers to cut energy bills by £30 to £35 this year. The scheme will also be extended from March 2015 to March 2017 to provide greater industry certainty and enable us to reach an additional 840,000 homes.

Jeremy Lefroy: I thank the Minister for her reply and welcome the news that the scheme will be extended to March 2017. Will she explain what is being done to make the scheme easier to understand and to access?

Amber Rudd: We are constantly reviewing ways to make the scheme easier and more accessible to people. We have different schemes that will add to its value. Some communities are working with our green deal communities fund in conjunction with the energy companies obligation to ensure that they reach and engage with people street by street. We want to have the widest reach possible, which includes not just the easiest to reach but the most vulnerable.

Nicholas Dakin: With more than 2 million people sadly still in fuel poverty, why is more than half the money being spent on this scheme going to people who are not in fuel poverty?

Amber Rudd: May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the changes to ECO clearly did not change at all the targets to help vulnerable people. Although we made the changes to reduce the amount on the bills, we have continued to focus on vulnerable people and will continue to do so as a priority.

Andrew Gwynne: Will the Minister confirm that as a result of the changes to the energy companies obligation, nearly half a million homes will not be able to receive that financial assistance to upgrade their energy units to get cheaper bills?

Amber Rudd: As I just said, the Government are absolutely committed to helping the most vulnerable. Although we reduced the charges on bills to look after consumers and taxpayers generally, we were absolutely clear that the most vulnerable people would not be affected. The section of the ECO that is dedicated to helping the most vulnerable people remains in place and continues to provide support.

Onshore Oil and Gas Exploration (Scotland)

Michael Weir: How many licences for onshore oil and gas exploration in Scotland have been granted by his Department in the last five years.

Matthew Hancock: In the past five years, the number of onshore licences for oil and gas exploration that have been granted in Scotland is zero.

Michael Weir: The Minister is aware that the Smith commission has recommended that the powers in relation to unconventional oil and gas be transferred to the Scottish Parliament where planning permission already rests. Will he press for an early transfer of those powers?

Matthew Hancock: As the hon. Gentleman says, the Scottish authorities already have control of planning for onshore oil and gas, and the Smith commission recommends that the licensing of onshore oil and gas underlying Scotland be devolved, whereas the licensing of offshore oil and gas will remain reserved. The proposals to bring this matter forward in a Scotland Bill are ongoing, but as he knows, the Infrastructure Bill is also going through this House as we speak, and we will look at the proposals for how we can make this agreement real.

Peter Lilley: When my right hon. Friend hands out licences, particularly in Scotland if it remains his power, will he make it clear that those who claim that hydraulic fracturing is a novel and dangerous process are talking nonsense? Far from being novel, 2.5 million wells have been fractured. Far from being dangerous, nobody has been poisoned by contaminated water, and no building has been damaged by the minute tremors, which are one thousandth of the power of natural earthquakes in this country.

Matthew Hancock: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. Of course the regulatory regime for onshore oil and gas extraction in the UK is very strong. Onshore oil and gas extraction has been going on for many, many decades and hydraulic fracturing has been used onshore over many decades in the UK. We will continue to try to make the most of these huge reserves underneath the UK and do so in a careful and cautious way.

Mr Speaker: Ah, a lion to roar. Mr John Robertson.

John Robertson: The Minister will be aware that the price of oil has come down, which means that there will be a lack of investment in the North sea either side of the Shetland islands and into the Atlantic as well. What will the Government do about the jobs shortages that are starting to come through the system, and how we will maintain the reduced prices for customers?

Matthew Hancock: One of the advantages of onshore oil and gas exploration is that the jobs offshore often require similar skills sets, so there is the potential for crossover. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Wood review is being implemented to improve the regulatory regime offshore to ensure that it is more flexible and that we can get maximum economic recovery from under the North sea. We are also reviewing the fiscal regime to ensure that we incentivise the production of North sea oil, which is good for the whole of the UK.

Tom Greatrex: As the Minister is aware, planning powers and the permitting regime that takes place through the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which is responsible to Ministers in Edinburgh, mean that no fracking can happen in Scotland without the approval of the SNP in Holyrood. It is a matter for them and, frankly, they should stop trying to distort that debate by suggesting that it is not. Following submissions made by me and others, the cross-party Smith agreement included commitments not just on licensing but to devolve underground mineral access rights, which are
	effectively a secondary aspect of the planning process, to Scotland. Labour has tabled an amendment to the Infrastructure Bill, which is now in Committee, to make that commitment good now. Will the Minister commit to supporting that amendment, which will help make it clear and consistent, beyond nationalist distortion, where responsibility for such matters lies?

Matthew Hancock: We are absolutely clear about the policy: Scotland will be responsible for onshore oil and gas exploration. That will include not only planning, as is the case now and which is an effective veto, but the positive aspects of licensing. It is a matter for the Scottish Government now, and in the future it will be unambiguously a matter for the Scottish Government. We are carefully considering whether that is done through the Infrastructure Bill or through a future Scotland Bill, but we can put beyond any doubt the clear commitment of the two Front Benches of the major parties in the UK that the onshore exploration of oil and gas is a matter for the Scottish Government in Scotland.

Clean Energy

Cathy Jamieson: What recent assessment he has made of trends in levels of investment in clean energy.

Matthew Hancock: Since 2010, an average of £7 billion a year has been invested each year in renewable electricity production, double the £3 billion a year in the previous Parliament.

Cathy Jamieson: In recent months, the UK has slipped to seventh place in the EY attractiveness index for investment in renewables. EY labelled the Government’s actions as
	“policy tinkering and conflicting signals”
	and
	“too much for investors to handle.”
	Does the Minister recognise that mixed messages are coming from his Government and that that is a major reason for his failure on investment?

Matthew Hancock: I do not think that the hon. Lady listened to my answer. The amount of investment in renewables is more than double that in the previous Parliament, so it is difficult to answer the rest of the question when it is based on a complete misconception of the facts. We have a clear policy to tackle carbon emissions and ensure that we meet the UK’s international obligations on carbon alongside the lowest possible reasonable cost to consumers and ensuring the security of energy supplies. In the past year, 15% of our electricity has come from renewable sources, double the amount under the previous Government. We are making progress, but we must do it in a way that keeps costs down.

David Mowat: Since we are quoting EU league tables for energy, will the Minister confirm that in 2010 only two EU countries had less renewable energy than us—Malta and Cyprus—and that he has no intention of allowing that situation to occur again?

Matthew Hancock: Absolutely. The previous Labour Government insisted on higher bills and there was very little in the way of renewables. We have tackled the higher bills and bills are falling—they have not been frozen at the high levels at which the Labour party proposed. We have also ensured that we have renewable electricity, because it is secure and it is domestic, and we have done that in a way with as low a cost as is reasonably possible.

Julie Elliott: Investors in renewable energy will have been very interested in the Minister’s answers but will have been dismayed this week to hear the Prime Minister attack onshore wind, the cheapest large-scale form of renewable energy, in the Liaison Committee. He said
	“let’s…put them into the planning system and if they can make their case, they will make their case. I suspect that they won’t”.
	With the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr Pickles) as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, I share the Prime Minister’s pessimism. The Secretary of State has intervened in more than 50 onshore wind applications, which could have powered some 275,000 homes. Does the Minister agree that instead of listening to local communities, as they should be, this Government have taken Whitehall intervention in the planning system to unprecedented heights?

Matthew Hancock: The Opposition have an extraordinary contradiction at the heart of their questions. The Prime Minister is clear that onshore wind should not be subsidised because increasingly it is a value-for-money proposition. The idea that we should subsidise more heavily something that is increasingly approaching grid parity seems bizarre, and the idea that that should be done without proper planning consideration is bonkers.

Energy Security

William Bain: What recent assessment he has made of the UK’s energy security.

Albert Owen: What recent assessment he has made of the UK’s energy security.

Edward Davey: The UK remains the most energy secure country in the European Union and is ranked fourth in the world by the US chamber of commerce. On electricity security of supply, we are successfully implementing short, medium and long-term policies to overcome the legacy of underinvestment that we inherited, so we will keep the lights on. From National Grid’s supplemental balancing reserve to the capacity market auctions this week through to the £45 billion investment in the UK’s electricity generation networks in 2010, this Government have delivered on energy security for the UK.

William Bain: Meeting our security of supply challenge requires stable investment, and investors need confidence in the long-term direction of Government policy. After 2020, when the levy control framework expires, that confidence evaporates in this Government’s current road map, so will the Secretary of State give the industry a
	big pre-Christmas present by finally committing this Government to a 2030 decarbonisation plan to give the sector the certainty it needs?

Edward Davey: I have done a lot better than that. Through UK leadership in the European Union, we now have European Union 2030 targets, which are among the most ambitious in the world. The UK led that and that gives confidence to the sector not just in the UK, but across the whole European Union.

Albert Owen: The Secretary of State was right earlier when he said that to get energy security we need a proper rich energy mix, but is he as disappointed as I am that the most predictable of energy sources, tidal energy, has not progressed beyond the demonstration schemes and into commercial energy projects, including Siemens in my constituency? Will he meet me and a delegation from the Anglesey Energy Island to see how we can progress so that national needs can be met by local sources?

Edward Davey: I will always be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman. Although there have been some setbacks with Marine Current Turbines being put up for sale by Siemens, there are some positive signs—for example, MeyGen in the north of Scotland is the world’s first tidal array, and we are very proud of that. Moreover, I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that we are intensifying our negotiations with Tidal Lagoon Power over Swansea bay.

Energy Bills (Low Carbon Energy)

Philip Davies: What estimate he has made of how much subsidies for low-carbon energy will add to domestic energy bills over the next 20 years.

Edward Davey: The impact of our policies on average household energy bills in 2020 is to cut them by 7%, compared to those energy bills without our policies. That is equivalent to an average saving of £92. The impact estimated for 2030 is to cut bills by 4% or £62 per annum.

Philip Davies: The Committee on Climate Change has said that households already pay an average of £45 a year to support low-carbon power, and that will rise to £100 in 2020 and £175 in 2030. Can the Secretary of State confirm that those figures are true? Does he agree that there is nothing more nauseating than hearing people in this House on the one hand calling for lower energy prices, and on the other hand calling for more climate change policies and renewable energy, which are the one thing that increases prices? Is it not time that we had more cheaper energy and less greener energy?

Edward Davey: I expect any figures from the Committee on Climate Change to be correct, but of course the ones my hon. Friend quotes do not tell the full story of our policies, which was told by my response to him. My hon. Friend just does not get the green energy opportunity, but in the spirit of Christmas let me cheer him up by telling him that the green energy savings I mentioned come partly from regulations—the type of Government
	intervention he dislikes so much. Worse still for my hon. Friend, his constituents are saving money, thanks to green regulations from the European Union.

Topical Questions

John Robertson: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Edward Davey: The most significant development for my Department since the last DECC oral questions has been the climate change agreement secured in this year’s talks in Lima last week. British leadership on the European Union’s position on climate change helps to secure an ambitious 2030 target for EU cuts in greenhouse gases. This European leadership has been significant in accelerating political momentum into the Lima talks and beyond, through to the crucial Paris summit on climate change next year.

John Robertson: I congratulate the Secretary of State on what happened in Lima. Let us hope that when we get to Paris we can solidify all the things that were talked about.
	Secretary of State, I sent your Department, Ofgem, the chief executive officers of the big six companies and many other interested groups a copy of a report that I did for the Energy and Climate Change Committee on how to help the safety of vulnerable people at times of need. Everyone except your Department and Ofgem has replied: why? All the others have contributed to a voluntary code of practice, and I am happy about that. Why cannot DECC and Ofgem put people before political point-scoring?

Mr Speaker: I do not have a Department and I have not failed to reply, but if someone has I am sure he or she will take responsibility.

Edward Davey: Let me give the hon. Gentleman a Christmas present—I will ask for his report to be put in my Christmas Red Box.

Nick Harvey: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the marine energy sector has recently had bad news with the proposed sale of Marine Current Turbines by Siemens and Pelamis going into administration. In the light of fierce competition from France, which has signed partnership agreements to develop two schemes off the Brittany coast, what is he going to do keep the UK at the forefront of this, and will he promote opportunities such as those off Lynton and Lynmouth as a way of doing so?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is right to say that we have had some disappointing announcements on Marine Current Turbines and Pelamis, which is unsettling for those companies and the families involved. However, there has been some good news: as I said to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), MeyGen is the world’s first tidal array project, and I think that the Lynton and Lynmouth demonstration zones will be
	able to take forward further tidal arrays. The fact that we are looking very intensively into tidal lagoon power is a real shot in the arm for the tidal industry.

Caroline Flint: May I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and all hon. Members a very happy Christmas? May I also wish the Secretary of State good luck, as I understand he is appearing in pantomime this Christmas? I am sure that we all want to wish him the best of luck. It is good to know that the Liberal Democrats are beginning to think about their career options after the next election.

Edward Davey: Oh no, they’re not!

Caroline Flint: I understand that he is playing a drunken monk in “Robin Hood”.
	The best way to help households permanently to cut their energy bills is to make their homes more energy-efficient. According to the Government’s own figures, 5 million households would still benefit from cavity wall insulation and over 7 million would benefit from loft insulation. Why, then, has the number of households getting loft and cavity wall insulation fallen by more than half compared with last year?

Edward Davey: First, Mr Speaker, may I wish you, the right hon. Lady and all other right hon. and hon. Members a happy Christmas? I am afraid that those who wanted to buy a ticket for the pantomime at the last moment will be disappointed, because I appeared with St Paul’s Players in Chessington two weeks ago; I should have given more notice. It was “Robin Hood”, and some of us originally from Nottingham believe in some of those principles.
	The right hon. Lady asked a very important question about energy efficiency. She will know that our approach has been to go after measures not only on loft insulation and cavity wall insulation—which are very important but declining in terms of availability and options because so much has been done—but on solid wall insulation, which is more expensive but vital for tackling fuel poverty and climate change.

Caroline Flint: The Secretary of State does not want to admit it, but the reason so few households are getting help is that the Government caved in to the energy companies and cut the number of households they have to help. The chaos does not stop there. The latest round of the green deal home improvement fund for solid walls opened last Wednesday and closed the very next day. This is not just incompetent but wasteful. Instead of just giving money away, we could make the funding go further, in a fairer way, if it was used to support zero-interest loans for energy-efficiency, as we have proposed in our green paper.

Edward Davey: The right hon. Lady picks an odd day to ask about energy efficiency when we have announced 1 million energy efficiency measures through the green deal and the energy companies obligation. The solid wall part of the green deal home improvement fund had to close early because it was so popular and successful, so for the right hon. Lady to criticise that is remarkable. All those people who will benefit from that measure will note her words.

Mr Speaker: It is good of the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) to drop in on us. We are grateful to him.

Christopher Pincher: Energy experts believe that by 2030 we will need an additional 25-30 GW of gas capacity to meet our needs.What does my right hon. Friend have in mind to meet that extra provision? Will it include 15-year contracts for new entrants and not contracts discounted to one year?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend is right that we need investment in our energy infrastructure, including gas-powered fire stations. The capacity market auction on which many of those investment decisions will be made is under way this week and is continuing today to get the best possible value for money for energy consumers. It would be insidious of me to comment on an auction while it is under way. [Hon. Members: “Invidious!”] It would be invidious of me as well, so I will not comment, but my hon. Friend makes a critical point that it is vital to get new energy generation investment.

Mr Speaker: If the Minister could provide us in future with the energy efficient version of his reply, that would be extremely beneficial. I think with practice he will get there.

Pamela Nash: As has been said during these questions and earlier this week, fracking is a hot topic of debate, particularly in Scotland, which is surprising, because the Scottish Government have an effective veto. Will the Minister confirm again that he and his Department are powerless to overturn a Scottish Government decision if they decide to deny planning permission for any fracking project?

Matthew Hancock: As I said earlier, there have been no licences in the past five years for onshore oil and gas production in Scotland. Planning is a matter for the Scottish authorities and we are clear in our response to the Smith commission, which all parties signed up to, that licensing will also be a matter for Scotland. Onshore oil and gas exploration is a matter for the Scottish Government. If they do not want it to go ahead, it will not, and if it does go ahead, it will be a matter for them.

Mr Speaker: It is very good also of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) to drop in on us. I do not know whether he is aware, but he has a question on the Order Paper and we want to hear him. It is a topical question—anything the hon. Gentleman likes. I will give him a moment or two more to dream something up. Come on, Mr George—let’s hear you!

Andrew George: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I apologise: I was in conversation. On renewable projects, particularly large-scale solar and large-scale onshore wind, is the Secretary of State making sure that community benefit is being assured in terms not just of the energy created, but of the share in the resource?

Mr Speaker: It was a very good question; it was not about the money resolution for the Affordable Homes Bill, either.

Edward Davey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. In our community energy strategy and our work with both the solar and the onshore wind industries, we have stressed the importance of community benefits, and that is having a marked effect. We have enabled that through voluntary protocols, community benefit registers and the like. We have accepted and are taking forward the report of the shared ownership stakeholder group, which has also shown that people can be directly involved and have a stake in local renewable energy projects.

John Spellar: Following the story in The Sun today, may I congratulate the Secretary of State on slapping down his jobsworth official by wishing us all a merry Christmas, and may I reciprocate those wishes? May I also take him back to the reply given to me at the last Energy questions by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), who claimed:
	“There will be no blackouts this winter”?—[Official Report, 6 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 951.]
	Does the Secretary of State agree with her?

Edward Davey: Merry Christmas.

Anne McIntosh: May I correct my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on one point? Other than one example, there has been no deep well fracking for shale gas in this country. In Fylde, self-regulation and self-monitoring were proved disastrously wrong. Will he give the House a commitment that there will be no self-monitoring or self-regulation but a very cautious approach, and that the regulatory authorities will monitor seismic and other aspects of fracking at depth for shale gas?

Matthew Hancock: There is a very strong regulatory regime for oil and gas extraction onshore, whether through conventional means or hydraulic fracturing. In fact, in the autumn statement just a couple of weeks ago, another £5 million was set aside for independent monitoring, just as my hon. Friend asks. I can give her the assurance that this will be done in a safe and cautious way.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. There is now a spontaneous and heavy appetite for topical questions, which I am keen to accommodate.

William Bain: The green investment bank has been a great success, leveraging in over £5 billion of investment in renewables and other green jobs. Does the Secretary of State not agree that the bank would be an even greater success if it had the power to borrow on the open market, as the Opposition have proposed, and the ability to focus more on energy efficiency projects? When will he speak to the Business Secretary and the Chancellor to make sure that it gets those powers?

Edward Davey: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman agrees with us that the green investment bank has been a huge success. We have seen it develop further, and we are keen to see it develop still further. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary and I are in agreement that our manifesto will say that the bank will be given borrowing powers.

Gregory Barker: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the important role he played at Lima, along with our excellent team of negotiating officials, but does he agree that there is much more to do? Perhaps the single most important thing that the UK could do in the coming year, in the run-up to Paris, is to demonstrate to the world that a country can grow its economy strongly—we have strong economic growth—at the same time as reducing emissions.

Edward Davey: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am grateful for his comments. One of the reasons I set up the green growth group in Europe was to push the argument that a country can grow and go green, and that argument has been won in the debate in the European Union. He may be interested to know that in Lima we worked with Latin American countries—particularly Peru, Costa Rica, Colombia and Mexico—because our Latin American friends now want their own green growth group.

Douglas Carswell: The Secretary of State reels off statistics about home insulation, rather like a Soviet-era apparatchik talking about tractor production. Thousands of homes in Jaywick were promised home insulation at the beginning of this year. Why, at the end of the year, have only a handful of homes had that insulation, and why has the promise that more homes would get it evaporated?

Edward Davey: I have to say that we have a very good record on energy efficiency, as today’s announcement of 1 million energy efficiency measures from the green deal and the ECO demonstrates. I do not know about the particular example in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I can tell him that because of some of the changes we made to the ECO this time last year, some energy efficiency schemes have not gone ahead, but what has gone ahead is a £50 cut, on average, in people’s energy bills.

Christopher Chope: Does the Secretary of State think it is fair that at the public inquiry into the Navitus Bay offshore wind park, the applicants have in the middle of the inquiry put forward a separate and different application? It is now being considered alongside the original application, which has not been withdrawn. Is that not oppressive and a breach of the principles of the rule of law?

Edward Davey: I am surprised that my hon. Friend, who has great experience in the House, should ask a Minister to comment on a live planning inquiry.

Nicholas Dakin: Even after the bodged, late and partial mitigation of the carbon floor price, it remains a tax on UK manufacturing that is unilateral to
	this country. When will the Government come forward with an energy policy to support our UK manufacturing that matches the best in Europe?

Matthew Hancock: I am slightly disappointed by the hon. Gentleman’s tone because he has been supportive of the energy-intensive industries package that we secured at the Budget. It of course has to undergo state aid clearance, but it is pushing as far as is possible within EU rules. We need to ensure that we land that deal in Europe. At the same time, we have frozen the carbon price floor, so progress is being made.

Matthew Offord: It is disappointing that there has not been a ministerial statement about Lima this week, particularly given the warning from the Union of Concerned Scientists that the negotiators have left too many contentious issues unresolved before the deadline in Paris. Will the Secretary of State advise us why the deal is so good?

Edward Davey: In fact, if one follows the details, one finds that we secured more than we expected to on going into the Lima summit. The reason is that there were some good negotiations, particularly on the information that countries will have to supply in what are known as—I am sure that the House will have followed this closely—their intended nationally determined contributions, which will be announced in the first quarter of next year. Nailing that down was the key issue in Lima and we did so.

Alan Whitehead: As the Secretary of State will recall, the Prime Minister said recently that now that 10% of power is supplied by onshore wind, onshore wind should seek its passage through the planning process. I am sure he is aware that in terms of operational schemes and schemes that have planning permission, it makes up far more than 10% of the system already. Does he propose to put the Prime Minister right on this, or does he intend to rescind planning permissions so that the Prime Minister does not look silly?

Edward Davey: I am slightly confused by the hon. Gentleman’s question because he misquotes what the Prime Minister said on Tuesday. The fact is that onshore wind supplies just over 5% of our electricity today. By 2020, with the onshore wind farms that are in the planning stage and with the assumption that some will not get through, we expect to get to about 10%.

David Mowat: It is odd that we have nearly got to the end of DECC questions and nobody has mentioned nuclear power. To redress that, will the Secretary of State confirm that Hinkley Point C is going ahead at speed, and that the generation of power stations after Hinkley Point C at Sellafield, Wylfa and Sizewell are doing so as well?

Edward Davey: That is certainly our policy. We have managed to agree commercial heads of terms, as my hon. Friend knows. We have received state aid clearance for Hinkley Point C. We are in final negotiations with EDF and it is putting together its consortium of investors. We are not at the point of a final investment decision, but we are getting closer.

Kevin Brennan: What is the Secretary of State’s position on fracking, particularly following the news that New York state has decided to ban it?

Edward Davey: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like every Government to follow everything that New York state does, but we are an independent country and we make our own decisions. He will know that the Government’s policy on fracking is to support it through a robust and strong regulatory regime to ensure that health and safety and environmental concerns are fully taken into account, but also that we can exploit this important resource.

Philip Davies: When people voted for the Climate Change Act 2008 in the last Parliament, we were told that if we passed that legislation, every other country would follow suit. Have not the Lima negotiations proved that to be a complete and utter load of old cobblers, like much of what the Secretary of State says? If what I am saying is wrong, why, in a recent Westminster Hall debate, did Labour MP after Labour MP, many of whom voted for the Climate Change Act, complain that it was doing untold damage to the steel industry?

Edward Davey: I think that my last answer to the hon. Gentleman, in which I recommended EU product regulations as very effective in reducing his constituents’ bills, must have annoyed him a tad. The UK’s leadership on climate change is acknowledged not just in this country or in Europe but around the world. We are taking forward the climate change negotiations successfully and I look forward to a successful agreement in Paris. The one thing that we have to achieve next year is to ensure that the deal is ambitious enough.

Albert Owen: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Energy and Climate Change Committee has produced a report on small nuclear reactors. May we have a quick response from the Government very early in the new year? When we produced a report on fracking in 2010, it took three or four years before it became a flagship policy of the Government. We could go on to lose the opportunity.

Matthew Hancock: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is ongoing work on the commercial feasibility of SNRs. There was a further small package in the autumn statement to take that work forward, and we are working internationally to see whether the technology can become feasible.

David Nuttall: Will the Minister set out what financial benefits will be available for local communities where shale gas sites are situated? Will he confirm that it will be local communities that benefit, and that it will not be possible for councils to pocket the cash and use it elsewhere?

Matthew Hancock: Absolutely. The industry is committed to ensuring that there is a contribution to communities for exploration, but also that a minimum of 1% of production revenues goes to local communities. Some companies have said that they will put more than that minimum into local communities. It is crucial that the communities from under which gas can be extracted benefit from that extraction.

Kerry McCarthy: Analysis by climate change scientists of pledges made by Governments at Lima shows that the world is currently at risk of experiencing about 3° C of global warming. What can be done to reduce the global ambition gap on emissions by the time of the Paris summit, so that we do not cross the 2° C threshold?

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady is right that there is a real risk that when all the countries make their pledges next year, we will be some way short of what is required to keep global temperatures below the limit of a 2° C rise, which is what scientists say we need to achieve. We are doing a lot of work, not just in this country but in Europe and beyond, to see what can be done. There are pre-2020 measures that we should focus on, because the treaty would not come into effect before then. That is one reason why, when we negotiated the EU 2030 package, the phrase “at least” 40% was important—it gave us a chance to raise our ambition levels in Europe if we can persuade others across the world to do so.

Charlie Elphicke: The villagers of Shepherdswell in my constituency are concerned about plans for onshore gas exploration there. They are adjacent to an area of outstanding natural beauty, so will the Minister restate the guidance on that matter?

Matthew Hancock: Absolutely. My first act in this job was to strengthen the planning guidance and rules on the extraction of onshore oil and gas in national parks, AONBs and other places. That is an important reassurance to those who live in the most beautiful parts of our country that planning considerations for onshore oil and gas will be extremely tight.

Michael Weir: Many offshore wind developers have expressed concern that owing to the structure of the current contracts for difference allocation round, only one development will be given a CfD, imperilling many of the others. Can the Secretary of State give them any reassurance that there will be greater consideration of offshore wind in future CfD allocations?

Edward Davey: First, it is worth putting it on the record, as it is Christmas, that Britain leads the world in offshore wind, with more offshore wind farms installed than in
	the rest of the world combined. In the current round of CfD allocations—of course, it has not been completed yet, so I cannot talk about the details—we have ensured that we have sufficient allocation for offshore wind, but we have also ensured that the levy control framework includes further allocations for it, so that the consumer can benefit from dropping prices.

Nia Griffith: The Secretary of State has mentioned the cuts in the energy companies obligation. When those cuts were made, Ministers made it clear that it would not be acceptable if energy companies did not pass them on to consumers. Will the Secretary of State explain why 4 million households have still not received the full saving and what he intends to do about it?

Edward Davey: I do not recognise the figures that the hon. Lady gives, and I have to tell her that the energy companies obligation is one of the most successful energy efficiency policies ever implemented. A huge number of steps are being taken, and I hope that any future Government will continue and build upon them. We have given the industry much greater stability—it has never before had three years of reassurance about the future regime, which we gave it last year.

Andrew Gwynne: rose—

Mr Speaker: Ah. I have been saving the hon. Gentleman up.

Andrew Gwynne: The Government claimed that the green deal would be the largest home improvement programme since the second world war. If that is correct, will the Secretary of State tell the House why fewer than 3,500 homes have had work done?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman’s figures are, shall we say, inaccurate. Our analysis shows that large numbers of people—getting on for 350,000—have had green deal assessments, and more than 80% of those have either gone on to have that work done or plan to have it. There are now nearly 8,000 green deal finance plans, and that number is increasing. Although I will happily admit that the green deal has not been as successful as we had hoped, we have learned a lot of lessons and a lot of measures have been taken because of the green deal.

A and E and Ambulance Services

Andy Burnham: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the performance of accident and emergency departments and ambulance services, and what plans are in place to help them cope with winter pressures.

Jeremy Hunt: I welcome this opportunity to come to the House and confirm NHS plans to support A and E and ambulance services over the challenging winter period. First, we must recognise the context. The NHS always faces significant pressures during the winter months, and with an ageing population we have 350,000 more over-75s than four years ago. As a result, more people are turning up at our A and Es, with attendances up 5% on last year, and a greater level of sickness among those who turn up has led to an increase in emergency admissions of nearly 6% on last year. That picture is reflected across the home nations, with A and Es in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as England, missing key performance standards as a result.
	In England, where performance has been relatively better than in other home nations, we have been preparing for this winter for more than nine months—indeed, I chaired my first meeting to discuss the issue on 17 March. On 13 June we gave the NHS an additional £400 million for winter pressures. That was topped up in autumn by £300 million, making a total of £700 million to ensure that local services had the certainty of additional money and time to plan how it should best be used. That funding was provided earlier than ever before in NHS history, and was possible because a strong economy has allowed us to make year-on-year real-term increases in NHS spending. That funding will pay for the equivalent of 1,000 more doctors, 2,000 more nurses, and 2,000 other NHS and care staff, including physiotherapists and social workers. It will fund up to 2,500 additional beds in the acute and community sectors, and provide £50 million to support ambulance services.
	We are also progressing with a long-term plan to reduce pressures on A and E. We are providing £150 million through the Prime Minister’s challenge fund to make evening and weekend GP appointments available for 10 million people, and more than 4 million people are already benefiting from that. Our better care programme integrates, for the first time ever, health and social care services in 151 local authority areas, with plans starting in April to reduce, on average, emergency admissions to hospitals by 3%. The Five Year Forward View is funded by an additional £2 billion of new money announced in the autumn statement—we have a long-term plan for our NHS, just as we do for the economy.
	The winter will be tough, but a number of changes made over the last four years will put us in a much stronger position. Since 2010, the NHS has nearly 1,200 more A and E doctors, including 400 more consultants, almost 600 more registrars, 1,700 more paramedics and 17,200 more clinical staff overall. Our A and E departments are seeing and treating around 2,000 more people within four hours every day, and our ambulances are making nearly 2,000 additional emergency journeys every day. The Care Quality Commission has
	confirmed that compassionate care in A and Es has improved over the last two years, and according to patients the NHS is getting record scores for the safety of care, and for treating people with dignity and compassion.
	I will conclude by thanking hard-working NHS staff across the country for the outstanding care that they continue to deliver under a great deal of operational pressure. On behalf of the whole House I also thank the 70 NHS front-line volunteers who will be making this country safer by spending their Christmas in Sierra Leone on the front line in the fight against Ebola. They are the bravest of the brave and make our entire country proud.

Andy Burnham: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I of course echo the sentiments he expressed about NHS staff and volunteers fighting Ebola.
	I have to say, however, that I heard a good deal of misplaced complacency in what he had to say. Winter has not begun in earnest, but there are already signs of A and Es and ambulance services being stretched to the limit. Last week, a record number of people waited more than four hours in A and E and on trolleys. Ambulance response times are getting worse across England, with some 999 calls taking hours. Overnight, news has emerged of an 82-year-old man who waited more than three hours for an ambulance to arrive at his nursing home. He then waited a further 19 hours on a trolley in a corridor. That is appalling, and there are fears that things will get worse when the House is in recess.
	Given that, it should not be for me to drag the Secretary of State here today to explain what he is doing to prevent a full winter crisis in the NHS. The question he did not answer, but must answer today, is this: does he have a winter plan? If he does, will he publish it? People working in the NHS need to know what is in it. [Interruption.] He seems to suggest that he has one, but let me quote Dr Mark Porter, chair of the British Medical Association. He criticises what he calls the
	“total failure by government to come up with a meaningful plan”.
	The Secretary of State will have to reassure Dr Porter.
	The Secretary of State mentions money, but is it not the case that £300 million of it was allocated only in November? Does he really think that that gave the service enough time to plan? Dr Clifford Mann, chair of the College of Emergency Medicine, does not think so. He says:
	“Had these funds been used back in summer and early autumn we might have more resilience in the system now.”
	Dr Mann also questions where this money has gone, saying “very little” has been seen by front-line A and E staff, and instead
	“a lot of it has gone to shoring up balance sheets in acute trusts”.
	Is that true? Will the Secretary of State provide of full breakdown of how that money was allocated and has been spent to date? Were any conditions attached? I am sure he will claim the money has been used properly, but, if that is the case, why is the NHS already under so much pressure?
	Over the break, hon. Members will want to monitor the situation in their local hospitals very closely. However, we have learnt that from tomorrow the publication of
	data on A and E will be suspended for three weeks over the crucial Christmas period. That is simply unacceptable. Given that we know the figures are still being collected, there is absolutely no reason why they should not be published. The Secretary of State rightly puts a premium on transparency. Will he today order an end to the news blackout and instruct NHS England to maintain weekly reports?
	I have visited a number of acute trusts in recent days and they all say that the pressure on A and E is critically linked to the severe shortage of places in nursing and residential homes and cuts to social care. The sad truth is that today a record number of older people are trapped in hospital. They are well enough to go home, but do not have the support to do so. When are the Government going to wake up to the very real crisis in social care and the fact that it is dragging down the NHS?
	Finally, no one can predict what this winter will hold, but the warning signs are there and the NHS needs to plan for all eventualities. What discussions has the Secretary of State held with other Departments, and do the Government have a wider contingency plan for the NHS?
	This is a serious situation. If patients and staff are to have confidence, they need better answers than they have had so far. I hope the Secretary of State will start providing them now.

Jeremy Hunt: First, may I thank the shadow Health Secretary for bringing this matter to the attention of the House? As a former Health Secretary, he knows that operational pressures are one of the biggest challenges facing any Health Secretary. Indeed, he had many examples of very, very poor care on his own watch and he is absolutely right to give the House a chance to hear more about our plans for winter.
	The shadow Secretary of State asks whether we have a plan. It seems to me that he prepared his comments before he listened to the statement. We have put in more money than ever before. Plans were announced in June. NHS England had a press conference in which it went through the plans relating not just to the £400 million, but the extra £300 million that was agreed in September and allocated through October. That is a record amount. Let us consider what is happening in his own constituency. In Wigan borough, since 2010, because of spending that he opposed, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust has taken on 78 more doctors, 149 more nurses and 209 more clinical—[Interruption.] He says, “Does this help?” These are extra doctors and nurses on the front line, helping patients in his own constituency.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about care homes. The £3.3 million going to help his own constituents with winter pressures is to monitor the mental and physical health of patients in care homes and to help reduce the number of emergency admissions. We have a winter plan that is working in his own constituency to help improve the lot of his constituents. He needs to acknowledge that.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about the publication of figures over Christmas. We have never published figures over the Christmas period because it would
	mean forcing NHS staff to work over Christmas, whereas, where possible, we would like them to be able to go home for Christmas, just like Members of this House. When he was Health Secretary, did he publish performance or weekly A and E figures over Christmas? He did not. He did not publish them at Christmas or Easter; he did not publish any weekly A and E figures at all, so to come to the House and call it a news black-out says to me that he is more interested in political opportunism than in care for patients.
	It is disappointing that the right hon. Gentleman did not take this opportunity to disown his own leader’s instructions to weaponise the NHS. The NHS is not, and never should be, a political weapon. This is what third parties say. Dr Mann, president of the College of Emergency Medicine, whom the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, said yesterday that
	“the system is under pressure but it’s working pretty well”.
	The Foundation Trust Network said:
	“NHS providers prepared for this Winter earlier and more fully than ever before”
	and that—he should listen to this bit—the
	“NHS needs support not criticism”
	please. The NHS Confederation said the NHS was pulling out all the stops on urgent care and A and E, and that earlier planning and extra money were helping.
	The right hon. Gentleman wants to draw comparisons. Nine out of 10 people are being seen within four hours in this country, which is a higher proportion than in any country anywhere in the world that measures A and E performance—faster than Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Scotland, Northern Ireland and, yes, faster than Labour-run Wales. Eight people out of every 100 wait more than four hours in A and E in England; in Wales, that figure is 15 hours. He should concentrate on saving the NHS in Wales, rather than running it down in England, where it is doing so much better.
	Finally, if the right hon. Gentleman is worried about poor care, why is he still saying it was wrong to have a public inquiry into Mid Staffs? This is what Julie Bailey, the Mid Staffs campaigner, said this week about his comments:
	“It is very worrying, because if he becomes Health Secretary again at the election it is clear we would go straight back to the old days of covering up.”
	The NHS is performing well under great pressure. He should commend the efforts being made by front-line staff, not undermine them by trying to turn the NHS into a political football.

Simon Burns: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the staff of Broomfield hospital in Chelmsford and the GP surgeries in mid-Essex on the fantastic job they are doing to look after patients in difficult circumstances because of the significant increase in the number of patients needing and accessing care? Furthermore, does he agree that it is rather demoralising for staff and sad that Labour seeks to turn the NHS into a party political football simply—

Mr Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State does not need to concern himself with Opposition policy, as I think the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns),
	on his good days, knows. The Secretary of State should focus on a brief statement of the Government’s policy, for which we will be grateful.

Jeremy Hunt: I can confirm that the Government’s policy is to root out poor care wherever we find it, not to cover it up and conceal it for party political purposes.

Valerie Vaz: The College of Emergency Medicine gave the Secretary of State a 10-point plan in 2013. Will he say which of those 10 points he has enacted?

Jeremy Hunt: We have enacted, or started to enact, every single one of them. Some of them take a bit longer—the contracts for A and E consultants, for example, which we want to ensure are attractive enough to encourage people to want to become A and E consultants. I am pleased to say that we have made some progress on that and are now getting the recruits coming into A and E that we want to see. Other things are starting to happen this winter—more co-location of GP services at A and E front doors and better discharging procedures from hospitals. We have been working very closely with the College of Emergency Medicine, which has been a great help to us in devising these winter plans.

Mark Hoban: Last Friday, my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and I met leaders of the health and social care system in south-east Hampshire to discuss how it is dealing with the operational challenges it faces. May I commend to my right hon. Friend the model it is using—of working together to prevent unnecessary admissions, ensuring a safe and speedy assessment of those who turn up at A and E and also issuing a prompt discharge of those who are medically fit to return to their own homes?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I commend what is happening in his constituency. He will be pleased to know that this is beginning to happen all over the country. The heart of the long-term solution is to have people in the social care system, people in primary care and people in hospitals to see themselves as part of one system, in which people are properly flowing between different parts of the system in the way that is right for them, ignoring organisational or institutional barriers. Where that happens, we are making good progress and we are getting the right performance in A and Es.

Karen Buck: Last week, the chief executive of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust told me that it had a ward of patients that it was unable to discharge into the community. This week the Care Quality Commission ranked the A and E unit at St Mary’s as being inadequate owing to a lack of bed capacity and physical capacity in the ward. Yesterday the London ambulance service had to call in emergency help because it is under such pressure. What is the Secretary of State doing to turn around the crisis in central London’s health service? Will he remind us again why it made sense to close two west London A and E units in the middle of an A and E crisis?

Jeremy Hunt: It is funny how the hon. Lady talks about the closing of A and E departments without talking about the opening of A and E departments and the improvement of facilities. The plans for north-west
	London involve significant improvements, including weekend opening of GP surgeries, which is one of the key things that the shadow Front-Bench team has talked about as something that will help A and E departments. As for what is happening specifically, I was disappointed with the CQC report about the A and E at St Mary’s, but I gently say to her that it was this Government who set up an independent inspection regime with a chief inspector who gives the public information in a way that they did not have before. I think that is the biggest spur to making sure that the right changes are made quickly.

Bob Russell: The general public will not have been impressed with the political posturing from the shadow Secretary of State. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a significant number of people who go to A and E should not be there, and as part of his long-term NHS planning, does he agree that if first aid were taught as part of the national curriculum, fewer people would go to A and E?

Jeremy Hunt: I commend my hon. Friend for championing this cause. He is absolutely right that we need first aid. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy)—I am not sure he is here—is a first responder, and I want to commend him for the work he does in that respect, because it makes a big difference in emergency situations if we can people to patients more quickly.

Andy Slaughter: The CQC report into Imperial, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) referred, found poor standards of cleanliness, too few nurses and thousands of patients awaiting surgery. It is the third CQC report in west London in four months, and it has found five major hospitals as requiring improvement and three A and E departments inadequate. The only one that is not inadequate—Charing Cross, which is good—is the one the Secretary of State wants to close. Waiting times are down to some of the worst in the country, yet they used to be among the best. We in west London do not recognise what he is saying. After two years of refusing, will he now meet me and other west London MPs to talk about the crisis in west London health care?

Jeremy Hunt: On the contrary, it is the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who do not recognise what he says or all the scaremongering leaflets about what is happening to NHS services in north-west London. We have plans to open two brand-new hospitals; we have weekend opening of GP surgeries; and we have big improvements happening in A and E departments. Let me gently say to him that, along with his Front-Bench team, he voted not to have a chief inspector of hospitals who could provide independent information about the quality of services. Now that he is quoting that information, I hope he realises that that was a mistake.

Tony Baldry: Clinical commissioning groups and hospital trusts throughout the country, including those in Oxfordshire, are working very hard to ensure that they can triage people at the entrance to accident and emergency departments, so that those who need primary care get primary care and those who need
	A and E services get A and E services. Was the urgent question not simply a new form of political ambulance-chasing?

Jeremy Hunt: What my right hon. Friend has said about what is happening in Oxfordshire is very important. I commend the efforts that are being made there, as well as those that are being made in so many other parts of the country. It is interesting to note that all the questions that are being asked by those on the Government Benches are about the details of how we can help the NHS to get through the winter, while on the Opposition Benches it is all about politics. I think we know which side cares about patients the most.

Douglas Carswell: There have been serious problems with ambulance response times in Clacton. I recognise that the ambulance trust is addressing some of them, and I recognise that the Secretary of State is taking genuine steps, not least in establishing proper inspection systems, which is fantastic. However, many of the problems have been connected with turnaround times at Colchester hospital’s A and E department. Would it not be helpful if patients could access primary care via GPs in the first place rather than being forced to go to A and E departments? Emergency care would be then accessible in emergencies.

Jeremy Hunt: The long-term solution is to provide more GPs and GP capacity, which is why we plan to train 5,000 more GPs over the course of the next Parliament, but that will take time, so we need to find shorter-term solutions. We are working with the Royal College of General Practitioners to establish what can be done in the short and medium term.

David Nuttall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that hoax calls are one of the causes of the pressures on the ambulance service, and that those responsible should always be prosecuted and dealt with in the most severe manner possible?

Jeremy Hunt: It is totally unacceptable for people to create extra pressure on ambulance services when they should not be doing so. One of the encouraging aspects of the better care programme is the fact that we are starting to analyse the ambulance service, the local NHS and the social care system in order to establish where the highest volumes of ambulance calls are coming from and sort out the problem.

Clive Betts: Two weeks ago, along with other Members of Parliament, I met executives of the Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which, as I am sure the Secretary of State agrees, is an outstanding trust that invariably meets its care and financial targets. However, we were told that even that trust was not meeting its A and E targets. Would the Secretary of State care to reflect on the fact that if a trust as good as the Sheffield Teaching Hospitals trust is experiencing those problems now, there is a real prospect of crisis in the NHS this winter?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree that that is an excellent hospital, and I commend the leadership of Sir Andrew Cash, its chief executive. I have been to the hospital myself; it was absolutely spotless, and I was very impressed by what I saw.
	The hon. Gentleman is right. What we cannot do, given the pressures faced by the NHS, is start pointing fingers at individual hospitals, because even well-run hospitals are experiencing a high level of pressure. Hospitals tell us that the solution is often not in their own hands. It is a question of the number of people who turn up at the front door and the number of people whom they are able to discharge at the back, and if neither of those problems is sorted out—which will require proper links with the rest of the local NHS—there will be further problems. The system resilience groups that are now working throughout the country are trying to deal with the issue.

Peter Bottomley: I praise the clinical and other staff at Worthing and Swandean hospitals, and at Rustington’s Zachary Merton hospital. Could hospitals and GPs in each region or locality get together with care homes and nursing homes and establish, with the help of paramedics and members of the ambulance service, which people should be taken to hospital and which people should remain at the nursing or care homes? Too often, people in old age are taken to hospital when that is inappropriate.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I commend the care at Worthing hospital. As he will know, I try to go out on the NHS front line and take part in a shift most weeks, and the very first hospital I went to was Worthing hospital, where I thought the care was excellent. He is right that it is about close working; people in care homes who end up going to A and Es when they could have been better looked after at their care home is probably top of the list of admissions to hospital that we could avoid, because we know the vast majority of those people will end up being admitted to hospital if they arrive at an A and E. That is often not the best thing for people with late-stage dementia, for example, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right and I want to reassure him that that is a big focus of our efforts this winter.

Kate Green: Mrs J, an elderly constituent of mine, waited two hours following a fall for an ambulance that should have reached her in 30 minutes. The Secretary of State will be aware that there have been similar cases, not least the one described to the Deputy Prime Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) at Prime Minister’s questions last week. Two calls were made to the North West ambulance service in respect of Mrs J, and one was received from NWAS one and a half hours after the first report, explaining there would be a delay in getting an ambulance to her because of pressures in the system. While it is welcome that the family and carers were kept informed about what was going on, is it not a symptom of terrible pressures in the system that routine operating procedures now have to include call-backs to explain delays?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady is right, and there is particular pressure in the ambulance service across the country. We are putting in £50 million of winter-pressures money to help address those issues. Where there are unavoidable delays because of other emergencies at the same time, it is important to get the communication right, and I do not think we do that as well as we should. There are
	times when we could give more specific information about the likely arrival times of ambulances, according to the algorithms used by 999 and 111 call-handlers. That would keep the public better informed. That is something we are looking at.

Jeremy Lefroy: West midlands ambulance paramedics and staff do a brilliant job under great pressure at the moment, but one thing that the head of the ambulance service has mentioned to me is the difficulty in planning ahead to provide more vehicles and staff because some of the funding—not particularly the winter-pressures funding, but funding around Stafford hospital—is on a short-term recurring, rather than a long-term, basis. Might the Secretary of State look into that and see how it could be made long term, so that instead of paying lots of overtime, we could recruit and train more paramedics?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that issue. One issue that has been debated often in this House is the money we waste in the NHS on locum staff, who are much more expensive than full-time staff. One of the ways we can deal with that is through something I announced in my response to the extra money in the autumn statement on our long-term plan for the NHS, which is to give multi-year commissioning contracts and multi-year tariffs to trusts, so that they can have a longer-term horizon. Too often the planning horizon is just for the next year. Indeed, I think there is a discussion to be had about whether this winter pressures money we put in every year to help could be better integrated in NHS core budgets, as a way of making sure we get the best use of that money.

Tom Blenkinsop: North-East ambulance service is now the eighth out of 10 ambulance services to be moved to operational level 4 as a result of winter pressures—while temperatures are 12° C and above. In my area, the local hospital trust is £91 million in deficit and the Government have gone into a process of closing minor injuries units in Guisborough hospital and Brotton hospital and walk-in centres in Skelton and Park End. Does the Health Secretary believe any of those factors might be adding to winter pressures, or am I just scaremongering and being political?

Jeremy Hunt: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the facts, rather than being political, he will see that in his constituency there are more doctors and nurses and more front-line clinical staff than there were, and he will find that more people are getting operations and more people are being seen at A and E departments than when his party was in power. That is why, I am afraid, it is very political. I notice that on the day when the Labour party is saying that there is a big issue with winter pressures in the NHS, fewer than 10 Labour Back Benchers are present—fewer than 10; that is how seriously Labour is interested in this issue. Is it not really about the politics?

Matthew Offord: Having accompanied the London ambulance service on a shift at the Mill Hill depot in my constituency, I have seen the unrealistic demands placed on the ambulance service. Fiona Moore, the medical director of the London
	ambulance service, has said that more than 6,000 calls were made in the capital over the Christmas period last year in connection with alcohol-related incidents. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is unacceptable and that it places an unfair burden on the service?

Jeremy Hunt: I do. I thank my hon. Friend for going out with his local ambulance service. Indeed, I want to thank the many Members on both sides of the House who go out and see what is happening on the NHS front line. The problem that my hon. Friend raises is exactly the kind of problem we are trying to address. I do not want to pretend that all these problems can be addressed this winter. Part of the issue is that the quickest way to see a doctor is to go to A and E, where the average waiting time to see a doctor is only half an hour across the country. That is the fastest time anywhere in the world. We need to find better out-of-hospital alternatives, and better alternatives to calling an ambulance, if we are to reduce the pressure on the emergency services.

Kerry McCarthy: It was reported recently that Bristol’s Southmead hospital was the third worst performing hospital in the country on emergency targets, with only 84% of cases seen within four hours. NHS England temporarily withheld £1.35 million to cope with extra winter demand while a believable improvement plan was produced. Clearly, 84% is nowhere near acceptable, particularly as we approach winter. What can the Department of Health do to ensure that Southmead hospital improves its performance?

Jeremy Hunt: We are doing a number of things. I have spoken to people in the Bristol area about what we need to do to improve the situation there and I assure the hon. Lady that we are focusing on it. It is partly why we are putting in £700 million this year to help hospitals to cope with those pressures. We have a brand new hospital in Bristol as well, and it has had some teething problems, but I am confident that the staff there are working incredibly hard to turn the situation around.

Charlie Elphicke: In Dover, we are looking at ways of reducing the pressure on A and E through the Prime Minister’s “8 till 8” challenge fund, and at upgrading the minor injuries unit to create a local emergency centre. Is that not a more fruitful thing to do than simply revelling in the winter problems in the NHS, as the Opposition have been doing?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right. The NHS wants to know that it has a Government who have a long-term plan for the NHS, who are prepared to fund that plan and who have thought about the long-term solutions. Better access to GPs is one of the key things, as is access to a GP who actually knows about the patient and their condition. Sadly, we lost named GPs following the changes to the GP contract in 2004, but I am proud to say that, from next April, we will be bringing them back.

Meg Hillier: The Secretary of State has accused Opposition Members of political scaremongering. Perhaps I should refer him to the Public Accounts Committee’s report on out-of-hours services, which showed cost-shunting to the ambulance service by out-of-hours providers, and
	to our recent hearing on A and E, which revealed an incredible waste of public money and a lack of joined-up thinking. That is not scaremongering; those are facts from the National Audit Office being interpreted by Members from all parties.

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, and those are the facts that we are acting on with our winter plans. We are trying to reduce the amount of money spent on locum staff and to increase flow going into and out of A and E departments. There is a huge amount of practical things that can be done. I have absolutely no problem with dealing with constructive suggestions from both sides of the House on how we can help A and E departments to get through a difficult winter. It is unacceptable, however, constantly to turn this issue into a political football, when everyone knows that the pressures of an ageing population are making life very difficult for NHS staff and that those staff have a Government who are doing everything they can to support them.

Nigel Mills: I welcome the extra money for the NHS this winter, but what more can the Secretary of State do to improve awareness of and confidence in the 111 system, in order to stop people going to A and E when they do not really need to do so?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend asks an important question. The 111 service is one of the elements of the long-term solution that we have not touched on much this morning. There are definitely things that we can do to make the service better. For example, if someone is put through to a GP, that GP could, with the patient’s permission, access their medical records. That would give the GP access to information about the patient’s allergies, their medication history and other key information that would help the GP to give better advice. I am pleased to hear from NHS England that, by the end of this year, a third of 111 centres will be able to access GP records with the patient’s permission.

Robert Jenrick: Will the Secretary of State join me in praising the Fosse Way first responders and the staff of the East Midlands ambulance service, whom I will be going out with over the Christmas period? The East Midlands ambulance service has its problems, with the last Care Quality Commission report finding it was failing on four of the six major measures, and any support he can give the service will be much appreciated by its new leadership. Does he agree that Nottinghamshire residents will be surprised to hear of the Opposition spokesman’s interest in ambulance services, given that we in Nottinghamshire trace the failings of our service directly back to the last Labour Government’s decision to regionalise the ambulances services, which took an excellent ambulance service down to a failing one within five years?

Jeremy Hunt: Interestingly, the Opposition, who are trying to make so much of this, have actually run out of questions in an urgent question on a matter that they said was very urgent. I commend my hon. Friend’s interest in the east of England and I reassure him that we discuss it most weeks in my Department, because
	two of my ministerial colleagues are covered by the east of England ambulance service and we are very conscious of the problems there. The situation is getting better but there is a long way to go.

Andrew George: My right hon. Friend is fully aware, because he attended the Health Committee last week, that accident and emergency services do not operate in isolation. So does he not agree that integrating not only in-hours and out-of-hours GPs, NHS 111, ambulances services and minor injuries units, but social services, mental health services and dental services is essential to ensure that we have fewer avoidable A and E admissions and that we therefore reduce the pressure we are debating today?

Jeremy Hunt: I do agree. The first thing we could do as a step towards that is properly integrate out-of-hours care, linking out-of-hours GP services, A and E departments and 111 departments. Obviously, that needs to be linked into the in-hours GP care that people will give. I wish to commend the efforts being made in Cornwall to improve A and E performance, which has been getting better in recent weeks. We are all very encouraged by that, because there have been a lot of challenges in that area.

Rehman Chishti: I thank the Secretary of State for the personal support he has given to Medway Maritime hospital, particularly the extra £5.5 million given to the hospital to improve its A and E services. Will he confirm that hospitals in special measures and in challenging circumstances will receive any additional resources they need over the coming winter months?

Jeremy Hunt: We absolutely will make sure that we give Medway what it needs. I wish to thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning to improve the situation, as it is very challenging there at the moment and he has taken a responsible attitude towards it. It is really important to praise the staff at the hospital, who are working very hard, and to reassure his constituents that although there are many improvement to be made, there is a lot of excellent care in that hospital and we all want to get there as quickly as we can.

Mark Pawsey: When I visited the A and E department of the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust in Coventry, I saw some hard-working, dedicated staff dealing with many patients who had chosen to be there, rather than making an appointment with their GP, because that was easier and more accessible. Does the Secretary of State agree that much of the challenge of getting to see a GP arises from the GP contract negotiated by the previous Government?

Jeremy Hunt: We know that there were some serious problems in that contract. Interestingly, the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) was talking about integrated care, but we used to have named GPs who were responsible for the entirety of someone’s care—the GP’s name was on that person’s medical record. That was abolished in 2004, which was a very big mistake—we absolutely want to put it right.

Martin Vickers: When the Opposition use the NHS for political point scoring it can undermine the efforts of staff and cause unnecessary
	anxiety to constituents. A previous example of that was on 26 November when at Prime Minister’s questions it was suggested that Scunthorpe general hospital was turning away emergency cases, which was not the case. That necessitated the shadow Secretary of State’s office ringing the chief executive to clarify the situation. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to thank the staff at Scunthorpe’s hospital and reassure my constituents that it is open for business?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to do that. Staff will have been extremely disappointed at the efforts of the Labour party to try to turn into some sort of political football the services that they offer under a lot of pressure and with much hard work. Members of the public just need to look at the Chamber right now, and they will see which party believes in the NHS and which party does not.

Robin Walker: Tomorrow I will be visiting the Worcestershire Royal hospital, part of the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals Trust, in which there are 144 more nurses, midwives and health visitors as a result of investment by this Government. Hospital staff tell me that winter pressures are added to by the number of long-term dementia patients who are staying on wards. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to keep increasing investment in that area to ensure that we get better dementia care?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the most heartbreaking things is to see someone with advanced dementia arriving in an A and E department. People do not know anything about their medical history and the best care that they need, and it becomes very difficult for the hospital to discharge them in that situation. Having proper personalised care wrapped around those individuals will normally mean that hospital is not the best place for them to go. Indeed, to echo the comments that have already been made, the key to that is knowing where they would like to die. Very often it is not hospital, so we need to be much better in that regard.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my right hon. Friend examine the discharge situation in Gloucestershire Royal hospital? We had an instance this week of which he may be aware of clinically fit patients not being able to be discharged. We have some excellent community hospitals in Gloucestershire. Will his Department examine that problem to ensure that all branches of the NHS—the acute trust, the care services trust and the commissioning group—work closely together to avoid that problem becoming a real issue in the new year?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for championing care for his constituents. Let me reassure him: I had a meeting on that very issue on Monday. It is important that the NHS community care sector plays its role alongside the social care sector in making effective discharge possible.

Andrew Percy: I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words about first responders. I will be on duty tonight, as will thousands of first
	responders in Yorkshire ambulance service, Lincolnshire ambulance service and throughout the country, responding to cardiac arrest, respiratory disease and so on. On the matter of community service, what are the Government doing in the light of the Royal College of Nursing saying to us at a Health Committee a few weeks ago that a failure to invest properly in community services 10 to 15 years ago is having a major impact now on our hospitals?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right about that. Just as this Government have taken a very robust attitude towards poor care in hospitals—we now have 6,000 more nurses on our hospital wards following the Francis report—we need to take an equally robust attitude towards what is provided in people’s homes, to make sure that we have proper care. It is a false economy to cut back on out-of-hospital care to pay for hospital care, as we need both.

Martin Horwood: rose—

Paul Burstow: rose—

Mr Speaker: An absolutely delicious intellectual beauty parade. Mr Martin Horwood.

Martin Horwood: Mr Speaker, your festive generosity equals only that of Father Christmas.
	Gloucestershire hospitals have been under severe pressure in recent days, but is not one complicating factor that, in Gloucestershire and elsewhere, every unplanned GP admission to hospital goes via the emergency department? Although such cases may be relatively urgent, they are not necessarily what most of us would understand as an accident or an emergency.

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make that point. There has been a lot of support for the NHS today from Liberal Democrats. If they are ever considering which is the best partner to back the NHS at any hypothetical time in the future, they should know that there is only one party that can provide the strong economy to fund a strong NHS.

Paul Burstow: My compliments of the season to you, Mr Speaker.
	May I draw attention to the fact that people with mental health problems have double the attendance rates in accident and emergency departments compared with the general population? Given that fact, is it not strange that successive Governments have not invested in the evidence? If we invest in liaison psychiatry, we can reduce the numbers needing to go to A and E and give them better results as well. Is it not time that this Government did that and did it even more than they are planning to do?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can reassure him that we are investing more in liaison psychiatry both this year and next year. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), has particularly championed that, as it is a very good way in which to reduce pressure on A and E departments.

UK Anti-corruption Plan

Stephen Barclay: : To ask the Minister to make a statement on the Government’s anti-corruption plan.

Matthew Hancock: I am delighted to tell the House that we are today publishing the UK’s first anti-corruption plan. The Government are doing more than ever before to tackle the blight of corruption here and around the world and the new cross-Government plan sets out 60 actions for Government and partners over the year ahead. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), for their work on this issue.
	The new anti-corruption plan sets out how we will build a better picture of how corruption affects society and the economy; strengthen our legal and operational tools and activity; enhance our law enforcement response; deny use of our financial system to those trying to abuse it; and step up efforts internationally. I will deal with those points briefly and in turn.
	First, it is crucial that we know better the breadth of corruption and how it affects the economy. It is clear that corruption harms prosperity and undermines societies where it is rampant, so we are establishing a new intelligence capacity based in the National Crime Agency with a global reach to investigate and collate evidence in a single place and to make that information available to investigators, potentially worldwide. We will merge the resources currently split between the City of London police, the Met and the National Crime Agency into a new international corruption unit based in the NCA and we are considering what further funding can be directed to support and enhance this work.
	We are strengthening our operational tools and the legal framework. We are currently legislating for a new offence of police corruption and operationally pooling investigators who have previously been split among difference forces and agencies. Through the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill we are leading the way on establishing the first public central registry of beneficial ownership, recording who owns companies registered in the UK. That will help law enforcement agencies to remove the corporate veil that too often is used to cover up corrupt activities.
	Britain will be the first country in the EU to provide transparency to payments made by multinational companies in the extractives sector and, finally, we will step up our efforts internationally. We are working with partners around the world to build on the G8 commitments at Lough Erne to drive this agenda internationally and strengthen the global system. Britain will lead the way in her historic role of providing the secure, transparent and fair basis of law to govern how we do business, to stamp out corruption at home and abroad so that all can prosper in a truly free economy where the legitimate hard-working business cannot be undercut by the dishonest and the corrupt. For centuries, Britain has played this role and we must do so again. I commend the anti-corruption plan to the House.

Stephen Barclay: I thank the Minister for his statement. The plan is welcome and includes a number of welcome measures, such as action 47, which changes the legal test that applies to restraint orders. Will the Minister confirm that there are a number of notable omissions? For example, the plan does not address the introduction of unexplained wealth orders. Does he accept that 38 days to prove that a complex international transaction is corrupt is a pernicious time limit?
	Does the Minister accept that the plan is silent on limited liability partnerships used as shell companies? Does it address the lack of judicial powers identified in the recent judgment from Lady Justice Gloster? The Minister mentioned resourcing, so will he confirm how many people have agreed to transfer to the new unit, given that the police do not have TUPE powers and that it has been suggested that only two of the 35 had agreed to that transfer?
	Will the Minister address the fact that the plan refers to a review of the regime on suspicious activity reports, when the issue is what happens when SARs are reported? Out of the 316,000 reported, only 110 were subject to investigation by the proceeds of crime unit. Why does the plan appear silent on that issue? Will he also address issues such as beneficial ownership? The Prime Minister has given welcome leadership on beneficial ownership, but the plan seems to ignore the fact that about 45% of London property over £2 million is owned by offshore companies. It is silent about the time scale on the overseas territories, other than pushing it back to the end of 2016.
	Finally, the Minister wrote a very good book—I am sure it is still available in all good bookshops—calling for much tougher sanctions against those in banks guilty of regulatory breaches. Why, when he proposed criminal sanctions in his book, does the plan stay silent on the fact that the biggest fine in the past decade, on a money laundering reporting officer, was £17,500? Was my hon. Friend’s plan not an opportunity to preach about what he wrote?

Matthew Hancock: That is the second time in two days that somebody has referred to my book, which I thought was long forgotten. I am delighted not to have to promote it myself and that others are doing so for me.
	My hon. Friend raises a series of important points. This is the first UK anti-corruption plan that brings together actions across Government. It takes significant steps forward, but nobody would say that the job is complete. Everybody would say that there is further work to do, and I look forward to working with him and other right hon. and hon. Members to do that. Ultimately, we have to balance the need for transparent and non-corrupt contracts with the fact that Britain gains great advantage around the world from having the legal system on which many, many international contracts are based. So we need to draw up the plan carefully and sensibly, but at the same time firmly.
	On overseas territories, I can confirm that conversations are under way with overseas territories to ensure that progress is made, and we are indeed making good progress. On the transfer of new units, the two units in the police that have the biggest impact on corruption are in the Met and the City of London police, and both
	of those units will be part of the National Crime Agency. We are undertaking an additional piece of work to review how much further we need to go in the institutional arrangements. For too long all the work on anti-corruption was split between a multitude of forces and agencies. I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, as he was previously an investigator of such activity. Instead, that work is being brought together in the NCA.
	On the point about the number of alleged offences taken forward, the purpose is precisely to raise that number. I hope that further action will be taken. On beneficial ownership, following the Lough Erne agreement, the clauses being considered in the other place, which went through this House in the autumn, are among the most advanced in the world in making sure that corporate transparency is the order of the day—the standard practice. We will see how those clauses bed down. I have no doubt that in years to come we will want to review the effectiveness of those clauses to make sure that they are used appropriately and that the functioning of the register works. Crucially, we must make sure that we continue to drive forward the actions in the UK that have relevance around the world to make sure that we stamp out corruption wherever we find it.

Ian Murray: If staff in my office are watching this exchange, may I say to the person assigned to give me a “secret Santa” gift that I would prefer not to receive the Minister’s book?
	We know that corruption can do huge harm. The cost of corruption in Africa has been estimated at £100 billion and the EU estimates that the cost to Europe is £120 billion a year, much of it incubated here in the United Kingdom. That is why the UK must pledge to do its part in cracking down on corruption. We welcome the steps that the Government have taken so far and we welcome today’s plan, although the House has been waiting since June for it to be published. I pay tribute to the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption, which has done so much to push the agenda forward.
	The Labour Government introduced the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 and the Bribery Act 2010, which allows for the criminal prosecution of any organisation
	“which is incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom”
	for the failure to prevent bribery. I have a number of questions for the Minister about the plan and his statement.
	What resources will be available for enforcement of the new action plan beyond the pooling of existing resources? The plan states that a new central bribery and corruption unit will be created within the National Crime Agency by bringing together resources from the NCA and Department for International Development-funded units. In June 2014 it was reported that the budget of the Serious Fraud Office, the agency previously responsible for investigating and prosecuting the most serious cases of fraud and bribery, had fallen from £52 million to £32 million, so what resources will be in place?
	When will the new inter-ministerial group meet, who will make up its membership, and, vitally, how will it report back to this House?
	What impact will the action plan have on DFID and on UK aid recipients? Will the Government take steps to make aid recipient countries publish asset declarations
	for their publicly exposed persons—a matter that was raised by the APPG? What discussions has the Minister had with the British overseas territories, which are a huge component in this issue?
	Given last month’s Financial Conduct Authority report which concluded that most small banks have significant problems with anti-money laundering provisions, what measures are in the plan to deliver a more focused money-laundering regime?
	Finally, will the Minister join me in wishing everyone in the House a very merry Christmas?

Matthew Hancock: I think the hon. Gentleman and members of his office would benefit from reading my book, because it is all about why the worst financial crash in the history of the world happened on Labour’s watch. Labour Members have a few lessons to learn.
	The hon. Gentleman rather unhelpfully missed the tone of this discussion, but I will deal with the more constructive elements of his questions. The issue of resources is very important. First, it is about the effectiveness of the deployment of resources. Bringing together actors from different agencies will help to deliver a more effective response from any level of resources. Some of the funding currently comes from the DFID budget. We are exploring how international development funding can further support anti-corruption work at home and abroad. That is part of the plan, and announcements will be made on it in the coming months.
	I am glad to report that the ministerial group has met. I chair it, alongside the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands, and it includes representatives from across Government and different agencies. We are accountable to Parliament, and I am indeed reporting back now. Discussions with the overseas territories are under way, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay).
	I welcome the cross-party support for an anti-corruption plan. The substance of the hon. Gentleman’s questions was relevant. I look forward to working with him, with the APPG and with others to strengthen the plan further, because we are a better and stronger United Kingdom if we work together to enact it.

Philip Davies: Clearly, we all want to do everything we can to tackle corruption effectively, but I worry that the rules become so onerous that they catch an awful lot of legitimate small businesses and traders. Can the Minister assure me that the right balance will be struck so that rules will not be so onerous and officious that it is very difficult for law-abiding people to comply with them?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend makes an important point that was also made by the Opposition spokesman. We need to ensure that the money-laundering regulations, in particular, do their job of tackling money laundering without putting undue burdens on ordinary people and on other businesses. There is a vital balance to be struck. Many changes can be made in order to reduce burdens while ensuring that the rules are just as tight, if not tighter, on the perpetrators of corruption whom we really want to capture.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister assure me that the anti-corruption laws will apply to arms deals and to British arms exports? Will they involve forensic examination of any supposed corruption that has gone on between arms sales and regimes in other parts of the world rather than suspending Serious Fraud Office inquiries, as in the case of an investigation into the Al-Yamamah arms contract with Saudi Arabia?

Matthew Hancock: Of course, the principles in the anti-corruption plan apply across all sectors. The UK’s export control organisation is robust, as is our set of rules, which will continue to apply.

Martin Horwood: I welcome the Government’s anti-corruption plan and, indeed, the extractive industries transparency initiative, which performs a similar function. When will that initiative be extended to other industries?

Matthew Hancock: The extractive industries transparency initiative is specific to those industries. The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill will extend ownership transparency across all industries, so in a sense we are tackling the whole piece in one go. If my hon. Friend wants to suggest different industries that need a specific initiative targeted at them, I would be very happy to listen to him.

Gregg McClymont: The Minister is not able to tell the House which resources will be deployed in the new bribery and corruption unit or who will sit on the intergovernmental committee that he will chair. It seems that the only thing he is able to tell the House this morning is that his book is still available in all good book shops.

Matthew Hancock: I have said that the current resources will be deployed and we are working further on that. I have also announced that this is not a future inter-ministerial group, but an existing inter-ministerial group. With those two answers, I wish the hon. Gentleman a very happy Christmas.

Robin Walker: The Minister has mentioned Britain’s leadership on extractive transparency and I certainly welcome the fact that we have belatedly signed up to the EITI. Does he accept that the previous Government made a huge mistake in launching the EITI on to the world but then not signing the UK up to it, because that created the impression that it was a product just for corrupt countries? Now that we have fully signed up to it—we are leading the way in Europe in that regard—will the Minister embrace the recommendation of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee that we should be a champion of best practice in extractive transparency?

Matthew Hancock: I pay tribute to the work of the BIS Committee, particularly that recommendation. My hon. Friend has made an eloquent criticism of the previous Government, but I think today is a day to bring all sides together.

Meg Hillier: Many Nigerians I meet are very positive about the steps the UK is taking to tackle corruption. The
	James Ibori conviction was hailed both by the diaspora and by many in Nigeria. Will the Minister explain how the plan will help more such cases come to court and tackle corruption with this important partner?

Matthew Hancock: The first and most important element of the plan that will have an impact is that it will bring together the domestic resources used to tackle such issues—instead of having them splintered among different agencies and departments—and its transparency measures will make sure that we can better tackle corruption through transparency and also disincentivise it, because people will know that it will be harder to hide. I hope that those two things will help reduce corruption. If we ever manage to stamp out corruption as a society, that would be great, but this is about reducing it as much as possible.

Matthew Offord: Given that the UK maintains a responsibility to ensure good governance in the overseas territories, when will those countries actually be required to implement beneficial ownership rules themselves?

Matthew Hancock: We are working very closely with the overseas territories. Progress has been made. There is recognition among them that they need to act and conversations with them are ongoing.

Jim Cunningham: The Minister will know that when agencies are brought together to create one agency, that can sometimes create a form of rationalisation. Does he anticipate a reduction in the resources needed to make the new agency work?

Matthew Hancock: As I have said, we are looking at how the budget of the Department for International Development, through its designated funding, can support this work, because we are very clear that there is further work to do both internationally and domestically.

Jeremy Lefroy: When the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and I were in Dodoma last month with the International Development Committee, all Tanzanian eyes were transfixed on a parliamentary hearing, at which its Public Accounts Committee was looking into a substantial local corruption scandal. What work are the Government doing to liaise with Parliaments across the world—their public accounts committees, and indeed the Parliaments themselves, are taking these matters seriously—to ensure that we can co-operate with them?

Matthew Hancock: This Parliament has a proud history of helping Parliaments around the world to strengthen their capability to take forward this sort of investigation. I hope that having a more focused, cross-Government approach in the UK means that we can take it further from the point of view of the Government. If there is more that Parliament can do to help parliamentary scrutiny elsewhere, I am sure that that will be looked at.

Kerry McCarthy: May I press the Minister on his rather opaque answer on the question of property ownership? As has been said, it is estimated that about 45% of London property valued at more than £2 million is owned by offshore companies. Does
	he not think that it is in the public interest that we should know who the beneficial owners of those properties are? The plan does not require that to be made public. He mentioned laws going through the other place and said that they will need time to bed down, but does he not think that the time for action is now?

Matthew Hancock: The time for action is indeed now. The clauses in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, which have gone through this House and are now going through the other place, will put in place the central register for the first time. If we want to expand what is in the central register once it is set up, we should of course consider that.

Rehman Chishti: On tackling corruption and working with our international partners, does the Minister agree that people in certain developing countries need to ensure that everyone at every level pays their taxes, including Members of Parliament and members of Governments around the world? Only when they start paying their taxes and leading from the front will we really be able to tackle corruption.

Matthew Hancock: I thought that my hon. Friend was about to mention the Mayor of London.
	My hon. Friend makes an important point. As he knows, this Government have taken a huge amount of action to ensure that taxes are low but are paid. We have raised about £5 billion more a year by tackling tax avoidance in the UK. We have brought in new techniques to do that. I am sure that other Governments around the world under financial pressures could benefit in the same way.

Andrew Gwynne: The Minister mentioned that discussions are taking place with Britain’s overseas territories and his belief that progress is being made, but he did not explain to the House precisely what progress he believes is being made. Will he set out precisely what progress he thinks is being
	made with Britain’s overseas territories, and perhaps a timetable for each of the overseas territories to implement the beneficial ownership rules?

Matthew Hancock: There is progress in two areas: the first is fiscal and on tax, and the second is on transparency. The overseas territories are each in a slightly different position, so the answer is complicated, but I would be very happy to report in future on how that is progressing.

Julian Smith: DFID and other Departments are doing world-class work in this area. Does the Minister have a view on how the UK anti-corruption plan stacks up against those of our international partners?

Matthew Hancock: I would say that this plan is one of the most advanced anti-corruption plans, but I also pay tribute to the work of DFID. Corruption undermines prosperity and development as much as, if not more than, almost any other failing, so focusing DFID resources on measures to tackle corruption is a very powerful way to help development. We must make sure that we use the DFID budget in a way that promotes long-term prosperity, and tackling corruption is a very powerful way of doing so.

David Nuttall: Last month, a report published by the Financial Conduct Authority concluded that most small banks have significant problems with anti-money laundering. Given that finding, will my right hon. Friend explain what measures in the plan will deliver a more focused money laundering regulatory regime?

Matthew Hancock: Again, the question is how we can have strong money-laundering and anti-corruption rules that cause distress to those who try to break them, but do not place undue burdens on perfectly legitimate individuals and businesses. Getting the right balance between the two is very important and there is more work to do.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next year?

William Hague: The business for the week commencing 5 January 2015, and therefore next year, will be:
	Monday 5 January—Second Reading of the Serious Crime Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 6 January—Remaining stages of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill (Day 1).
	Wednesday 7 January—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill.
	Thursday 8 January—Debate on a motion relating to higher education funding, followed by debate on a motion relating to Gibraltar. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 9 January—Private Members’ Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 12 January 2015 will include:
	Monday 12 January—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Stamp Duty Land Tax Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Consumer Rights Bill, followed by motion to approve a carryover extension on the Consumer Rights Bill.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 8 January will be:
	Thursday 8 January—Debate on the first report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on winter floods 2013-14.
	I would also like to inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced the date of the Budget statement. It will be on Wednesday 18 March.
	May I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and all right hon. and hon. Members a very merry Christmas? I am sure that the whole House will join me in recognising the outstanding work that goes on to support the House throughout the year. I thank all staff who work in the service of the House and wish them a restful and peaceful Christmas and a happy new year. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for the first week back—a task that he will have just 10 more times before Dissolution in March and before he bows out after a quarter of a century as an MP. We will all be sad to see him go, even though he may be mightily relieved.
	I welcome yesterday’s unanimously agreed report from the House of Commons Governance Committee, which was presented to the House ahead of the extremely challenging schedule that the House laid down in its motion of 10 September. I would like to take this early opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), all the members of the Committee and its hard-working staff on producing such practical recommendations.
	The report sets out a series of sensible reforms that have the potential to move the administration of this place into the 21st century. It is right to conclude that the role of Clerk and chief executive should be split; it is right that we should reform the House of Commons Commission and the Management Board; and it is right that we should explore quickly how we can share more services between the Commons and the Lords. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is important that the House debates and acts on the report swiftly? Will he therefore confirm that it is his intention to move with alacrity to call a debate on it? Perhaps he even has a date in mind.
	Amid the festive flurry of written statements that have been published this week, I note that we still do not have the long overdue list of special advisers and their pay. After the Prime Minister promised to cap their numbers and cut the cost of politics, he authorised a massive increase in their numbers and their cost. He now seems to have stopped publishing any details whatever. Will the Leader of the House tell us what on earth is going on and when we can expect the list to be published, or is he hiding something?
	I note that, yet again, the Government have failed to bring forward the money resolution for the Bill on the NHS that is promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). Will the Leader of the House tell us when it will be forthcoming?
	On Tuesday, the House voted overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) requiring large companies to publish their gender pay gap. We know that women earn an average of £209,000 less than men over their lifetime, and the Government are clearly so concerned that they have done absolutely nothing about it for four years. Seven Conservative MPs even voted against the Bill. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will now listen to the will of the House and implement section 78 of Labour’s Equality Act 2010? Will he also tell us whether his equivalent in the Lords, Baroness Stowell, is still being paid less than he is?
	Given that this is our last sitting day before the Christmas recess, I want to take the opportunity, as the Leader of the House did, to wish all right hon. and hon. Members, all the House staff and you, Mr Speaker, a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. It seems that everyone is getting into the Christmas spirit in their own way. The Chancellor, who is Parliament’s very own incorrigible Scrooge, has been visited by the ghost of Christmas future, and he is the only person in the country who likes what he sees. The Prime Minister has been spotted pigeon shooting with a full police escort, because apparently he misses killing things, and the UK Independence party has been busy putting on its very own nativity play—it sent the wise men back to where they came from and told the Virgin Mary to stop breastfeeding in public.
	The festive season is now in full swing, and I have been hearing all about the coalition Christmas party. There was a bit too much excitement at the start, and there are now lots of people regretting saying things that they did not mean. They have learned that if you end up in bed with somebody, you can regret it for years to come. We can just imagine the games they were playing—for the Home Secretary and the Chancellor it
	was less musical chairs and more “Game of Thrones”. For the Liberal Democrats it was “Twister” when they should have been playing “Pointless”, and the Tories rewrote “The Twelve Days of Christmas” to reflect their past year—four resignations, three Euro-fudges, two lost MPs and a Chief Whip who’s nowhere to be seen.

William Hague: It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Lady, and it was nice of her to say that she will be sad to see me go. If it is a plot to get me to stay, it will fail. I am determined about the going bit, but also determined to enjoy the 10 further business statements that she talked about. I reciprocate the respect; she is the most cheery Opposition Front Bencher—not that that is a high bar when we look at them in general, but she unfailingly manages to clear that bar.
	I join the hon. Lady in her welcome for the report by the House of Commons Governance Committee, and I thank the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who chaired it, and all the right hon. and hon. Members of all parties who served on it. It is for the House to reach a view and take a decision—there is no fixed Government view, but I welcome the report and judge that it will be well received in the House and that there will be a great deal of support for its recommendations. We will indeed move with alacrity, as the hon. Lady put it, to have a debate. Although I have not been able to announce a specific debate in the first week back, I will certainly facilitate a debate on the report in January so that if its recommendations are supported by the House—as I said, I think they generally will be—they can be taken forward expeditiously.
	The hon. Lady asked about the so-called festive flurry of written ministerial statements. Today and yesterday there have been 49 of them, although I notice that on the last two days before the final Christmas of the last Parliament, there were 50—even more. Only one more, but one is enough, as we politicians know. One is always enough to prove a point or win an election, so I consider my point fully made.
	The hon. Lady asked about the publication of the list of special advisers. It will be published today. There are more special advisers now given the nature of coalition, although their average pay is actually lower than it was under the last Government, which is an interesting point.
	Latest figures show that the gender pay gap has closed for people under 40; although there is more to do, it has closed a good deal and continues to do so under this Government, which we want to continue.
	The hon. Lady talked about the festive season in general, including for UKIP, and part of the festive season for Government Members is reading the Labour party document on UKIP, which has already been referred to—I am not recommending that my hon. Friends spend all of Christmas reading it, but it is good for a laugh now and again so I recommend reading it before Christmas eve. Page 18 gives advice on getting into a discussion with voters, and for when people ask about Labour policies it states:
	“It does not however follow that…emphasising our policies in our conversations with electors is always the correct response.”
	Indeed, when one thinks about some of Labour’s policies, that is pretty good advice for Labour canvassers.
	The hon. Lady compared the coalition to a Christmas party and getting into bed with each other, but it is not often that someone signs an agreement to get into bed for five years specifically, knowing that at the end of those five years they will be happy to be on their own. That, however, is what we did in the coalition agreement, and at the end of this year of coalition Government, as we come up to Christmas, we can celebrate what in my view is the most important fact: unemployment is 455,000 lower than it was 12 months ago. There are 326,000 more businesses in this country than there were 12 months ago, and 440,000 people have started an apprenticeship in the past 12 months. Those things are happening because the parties in the coalition got into bed with each other.

David Nuttall: The whole House will be united in condemnation of the massacre of 132 children and nine adults at the school in Peshawar. Following that atrocity, the Government in Pakistan have announced the reintroduction of the death penalty. If—God forbid—a similar evil was to be committed in this country, there would be calls for the reintroduction of capital punishment. May we please have a debate about what steps will be required to reintroduce the death penalty in the United Kingdom?

William Hague: The whole House will join my hon. Friend in wanting to remark on the horror of what happened a couple of days ago, and the slaughter of children. Even for those of us used to hearing about terrorist events and attacks, this atrocity was heartrending, and the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have expressed the views of the Government and the whole country. The death penalty is a matter for Pakistan in Pakistan, but the United Kingdom’s position is to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. It is open to my hon. Friend and others to try to secure a debate on that subject, but my judgment is that the House has passed the point at which it would be possible to reintroduce the death penalty.

Jack Straw: Around 15,000 British citizens in my constituency are of Pakistani heritage, and the atrocity earlier in the week has been profoundly shocking to them and the whole United Kingdom. I know that they will be grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and for the sympathy and condolences expressed.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and the Leader of the House for their approbation of the House of Commons Governance Committee report. I express my profound thanks to the Committee Clerks, who were drawn from all departments across the House service, as well as, formerly, the Clerks Department. Above all, I express my thanks to my seven colleagues on the Committee, who came to its work with different perspectives and worked fantastically hard. In some cases, we had three evidence sessions a week. Happily, we managed to produce an agreed and unanimous report. That was not just a negotiating fix; the report contains important and granular recommendations.
	I thank the Leader of the House for his promise of an early debate. May I press him on one further matter? If the report gains the approval of the House, as I hope it will, there will be a need for minor, I think, consensual legislation to go through both Houses before the election.

William Hague: I join the right hon. Gentleman in thanking all members of the Committee, and I thank him too. I recognise that there were a lot of evidence sessions. The Committee got through a lot of work and heard from a lot of people with expertise and experience. That has clearly benefited the report.
	On legislation and the possible amendment of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, we will of course have to listen to the views of the House in the debate. If, as I expect, there is a great deal of support for the Committee, it will be important to be able to get on with the legislation. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate better than most how difficult it might be to ensure proper scrutiny at this stage of a Parliament. The House has a record of wanting to scrutinise legislation on House of Commons matters, as indeed on most other matters. I cannot guarantee that, but I am happy to discuss the matter further with him and the other members of the Committee.

George Young: Further to the reply my right hon. Friend has just given, may I join the chorus of approval for the work of the Governance Committee, so ably led by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw)? It has been a model for how a Select Committee should work. Can I take it from what my right hon. Friend has just said that he plans to table the draft motion in annex C when debate the report? Who has responsibility for implementing the recommendation in paragraph 186:
	“that the ‘paused’ recruitment process be formally terminated. We believe that this action should be taken immediately.”?

William Hague: I will clarify the motion when we announce the debate. It is very helpful of the Committee to put forward a draft resolution, which must be the frontrunner candidate to be the motion for that debate. On the responsibility for implementing that recommendation, I think that rests with the appointment panel that worked on it. The matter can be considered even before we come to a debate.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for arranging an early debate on the report. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for his steering of the Committee, and for putting up with me in the private sessions as well as the public sessions. The report is important: it does not look backwards and it is not a slap in the face for anyone. We are making progressive recommendations, not least to ensure that Members understand that there is a split in the role and that they are both very important roles. I also appreciate the fact that the urgent debate will take place earlier, rather than later.

William Hague: I thank the hon. Lady very much for the part she has played on the Committee. It was clear that all members of the Committee were very engaged in its work. The recommendations are clear. As I said, I think they will be well received by the House. We will have the debate in January.

Edward Leigh: We had a very good debate on Russia and Ukraine last week, but events are moving fast. For example, evidence emerged over the weekend of discussions between President Hollande
	of France and Mr Putin. Various compromises may be in the air. This is an important issue. I am not asking for a debate immediately, but before Dissolution at the end of March will the Leader of the House have it in his mind, as issues relating to the Russian economy develop, to have another debate?

William Hague: One way or another, the House will need to be kept abreast of developments and to be able to comment on them, whether through statements from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or debates. My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to this international issue, which is fast moving and immensely important. I will certainly remind colleagues of the need to keep the House informed.

Jeremy Corbyn: A short time ago the Foreign Secretary announced the development of a new British base in Bahrain, and he accompanied that announcement with a statement suggesting that the human rights situation there was improving. It is the first British base to be developed outside Europe for a very long time, and that is a complete change from the Wilson Government’s east of Suez policy of the 1960s. Does not that deserve at least a full parliamentary debate, because it appears to be a complete change in foreign and defence policy that has not been reported to the House and that we have therefore not had an opportunity to question or debate?

William Hague: As a former Foreign Secretary, I do not see any change of policy in that; it will be a change in facilities for British ships based in Bahrain. The hon. Gentleman may know that Royal Navy minesweepers have been based in Bahrain for a long time—they are based there now—and play an important part in ensuring the safety of navigation in the strait of Hormuz. For them to have improved facilities in Bahrain can hardly be described as a complete change in defence and foreign policy.

Robert Halfon: May we have a debate on the identity of political parties? Given that nearly 31 million people are now in work, the highest level on record, youth unemployment is at its lowest level since the 1970s and we have 2 million more apprentices, is it not the case that we on the Government Benches are now the party of labour and the workers and those on the Opposition Benches are the party of dependency, welfare and reactionary conservatism?

William Hague: Yes. That is a most perceptive question from my hon. Friend. Of course, we are going to have a debate on the identity of political parties in a few months—it is called a general election. I am sure that debate will take place fully across the country. He is right that for the millions of people lifted out of income tax altogether and the 2 million people who have been able to start an apprenticeship, this Government have stood up for working people, and we will do even more in the months ahead.

Jim Fitzpatrick: One of the surprise inclusions in the Smith commission’s report was the proposal to break up the British Transport police. It was surprising because commentators over
	many years have commended them for the safety and security they provide on our transport networks, especially our rail network. Will the detailed proposals for that break-up come forward as part of the Smith commission proposals, or will there be a separate statement from the sponsoring Department, the Department for Transport, because I know that many Members will be interested in looking at that very carefully?

William Hague: I will refer the hon. Gentleman’s specific point to my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport and the Scotland Office. The Smith commission put forward a package of proposals agreed across parties, and where legislation is needed it will be brought forward in draft form by 25 January. I think that the best time to discuss all the implications, including the one he raises, is at that time, as implementation of the recommendations is being prepared.

Tessa Munt: National and international corruption inhibits this country’s ability to collect taxes that are rightly due and hampers the ability of Governments in developing countries to help themselves stand on their own two feet. I welcome the publication of the UK’s anti-corruption plan today, but will the Leader of the House consider ensuring that an annual statement is presented to the House so that we can see what progress is being made in that area?

William Hague: We have just had an urgent question on the matter, during which the Minister for Business and Enterprise, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), set out the Government’s position, so I refer the hon. Lady to all the answers he has given. He pointed out the importance of the plan in bringing together all the Government’s work and assured the House that he will keep it regularly informed. I am sure that she will find the answer to her question among those provided by my right hon. Friend.

Philip Davies: May we have a debate in Government time on unemployment? I fear we cannot rely on the Opposition to use one of their Opposition days for such a debate. In such a debate, we could highlight the fact that the unemployment rate in Shipley is 466 lower than it was this time last year, and we might find out why unemployment has dropped by another 29 over the last month in my constituency. I like to think it has something to do with the jobs fair I held in Shipley last month, which was very well attended.

William Hague: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the jobs fair in Shipley, which is a further example of the outstanding work he does for his constituents. He is right to draw attention to what has happened on unemployment. I referred earlier to the reduction of 455,000 in unemployment this year, but it is also important to note that long-term youth unemployment is down 53,000 this year. Such changes are greatly benefiting people in Shipley and across the country.

Simon Danczuk: As stated already, we have all been shocked by the barbaric actions of the Taliban in Peshawar over the weekend. My constituency has many Pakistani residents, and on behalf of the Rochdale council of mosques I would like to express our deep sorrow for the people burying their dead and to offer our support in the continuing fight against
	extremism. Does the Leader of the House agree we should debate this issue in the new year?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. People in his constituency and across the country will be deeply moved by the sight of families burying their dead children in such huge numbers. It underlines the need to work together internationally to counter terrorism. The need to do that is one reason we have been debating the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill several times over the past few weeks, and in the first week back we will be devoting two days to its remaining stages. These events underline the importance of that.

Tony Baldry: May I welcome the publication today of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill, which will provide the opportunity to fast-track into the House of Lords women consecrated as diocesan bishops? My right hon. Friend will know that there was widespread support and rejoicing in both Houses for the measure to enable women to become bishops in the Church of England, but there was concern that if the rules of seniority prevailed, it might not have been possible for women bishops to be in the House of Lords for perhaps another Parliament. This is a simple measure in a one-clause Bill. Will he confirm that he intends the Bill to be taken in a single day, with a Second Reading in one half and the remaining stages in the other half of the same day?

William Hague: The Bill is minutes away from introduction and publication, and this whole issue has indeed been the cause of rejoicing in both Houses, as my right hon. Friend rightly says. I will confirm the arrangements for the handling of the Bill in due course, but he is right that it is a short and simple Bill that should enjoy widespread support. When I come to announce the handling of business, I will certainly hope it can be considered quickly, with these facts in mind.

Mary Glindon: NHS England has announced at a late stage that it is halting the assessment for the Duchenne muscular dystrophy treatment Translarna. This decision has caused significant anxiety for people affected by the condition, so will the Leader of the House set aside time to debate the emergency interim measures that the Department of Health and NHS England need to put in place to ensure that Translarna completes the approval and funding process and can be made available to the boys it could help from as early as next April?

William Hague: I know that Health Ministers are conscious of this matter. It is a priority to ensure that patients in England have access to new and effective treatments on terms that represent value for money for the NHS and the taxpayer. I believe the decision-making framework for adoption of new treatments and interventions was discussed yesterday at the NHS England board meeting, but there will be many further opportunities to put questions to Health Ministers in the early weeks of the new year.

Conor Burns: Could we find time before Dissolution for a debate on the impact— the positive impact—of the Government’s academies programme? In that connection, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Jackie Steel, the principal of Bourne academy in my constituency, who retires this
	week and who has transformed that school and the prospects for its young children?

William Hague: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating the principal of that academy. So often it is the principal or head teacher who sets the ethos and creates the performance of a school or academy. We should all be grateful to those who successfully transform educational institutions, and a great deal of that is happening among academies. My hon. Friend’s local example is a very strong one.

Angus MacNeil: May we have a debate on the newspaper industry—local and daily, and perhaps with particular reference to the excellent new daily paper in Scotland from the Herald stable, called The National? After a few weeks, its circulation is almost up to that of The Herald itself and far higher than the established The Scotsman. Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to join me in congratulating the national newspaper on that and on the jobs it has created? Finally, may I, on behalf of the SNP, wish you, Mr Speaker, and all hon. Members a merry Christmas—Nollaig Shona.

William Hague: I think that is not so much a question as an advertisement! I am sure readers in Scotland will be able to make up their own minds about what they want to read without our having to endorse it. There is always something a bit suspicious about newspapers being endorsed by politicians of any colour, and those politicians often live to regret it when the newspaper decides to change its editorial line. I caution the hon. Gentleman a little about that.

Bernard Jenkin: May I say how happy I am to be able to join all those who have commended the House of Commons Governance Committee report, and urge my right hon. Friend to bring forward the debate as quickly as possible so that the findings can be implemented? I say that not least because I was the guy who came up with the idea of this Committee; I drafted the motion that was accepted by the House; and I was even the first to invite the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) to take on the role of Chairman—and he has done so most ably. Moreover, the report concurs with the evidence submitted by the Public Administration Select Committee.

Mr Speaker: Anybody would think that the matter was about the hon. Gentleman! If he wishes us to think that, it is Christmas time, and we are pleased for him.

William Hague: Indeed, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for having an idea that was taken up by the whole House. We look forward to taking up more of his ideas in the future—provided they are just as good as that one. The support he has given and the ideas he has supplied are a further illustration of the widespread support in the House for the work of this Committee and indeed for its findings, as I have no doubt we will discover when we come to debate it.

Andrew Gwynne: The Leader of the House will be aware of the recent report
	of the Environmental Audit Committee on air quality, and particularly of the recommendations pertaining to the planning system. This is really important for my constituency, which forms part of the Greater Manchester air quality management area, and there is great concern about a new proposal for 200 homes in a very heavily air-polluted area alongside the M67 motorway. May we have a statement in the new year on that Select Committee report and particularly on the Government’s intentions on taking forward the planning recommendations?

William Hague: This is clearly an important issue for the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and he has already succeeded in raising it powerfully on the Floor of the House today. There are, of course, opportunities to debate Select Committee reports, which come up regularly. I announced one such debate in Westminster Hall in early January and there will be opportunities for further such reports to be debated. The hon. Gentleman has made a good case for that particular one.

Mark Pawsey: The value of the all-party group was evident in the urgent question we have just heard. Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday saw the launch of a new all-party group on e-cigarettes, bringing together representatives of the 2.1 million users of e-cigarettes, manufacturers and those with an interest in public health. May we have a debate on the use of e-cigarettes, including perhaps, Mr Speaker, their use on the parliamentary estate and how they can be a valuable tool for people wishing to reduce or cease their use of tobacco?

William Hague: I agree with my hon. Friend that e-cigarettes have the potential to support public health objectives and to support smokers who want to cut down or quit. It is important, too, for users to have confidence in the quality of the products, which must be licensed like other nicotine replacement therapies. I am not sure when we shall have the opportunity to debate this, but my hon. Friend can of course make the case for it in all the usual ways.

Ian Murray: Pelamis Wave Power in Edinburgh has gone into administration with the potential loss of 50 jobs. It is tragic not only because those jobs are lost but because this company comprised the leading experts in wave technology in the world. May we have an urgent statement on what the Government might be able to do—in conjunction, of course, with the Scottish Government—to support Pelamis Wave Power so that we do not lose that wonderful research facility?

William Hague: Just a few moments ago, we had topical questions to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, so the immediate opportunity to debate that subject in the House has just passed. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to express concern about the jobs in his constituency. There will be further opportunities to raise that matter with the Energy and Climate Change Secretary on the Floor of the House.

Julian Lewis: May I welcome the Governance Committee’s recognition of the obvious fact that the qualities necessary to be a first-class manager are not the same as those necessary to be a first-class Clerk? Has the Leader of the House
	followed up his pledge to me in business questions on 27 November to speak to the Prime Minister about the possibility of making an award for the three women who acted so bravely to try to help Lee Rigby in very dangerous circumstances? Finally, will he speak to the Prime Minister on the question of a final settlement for those people infected with contaminated blood by the NHS—sometimes decades ago? One of my constituents in that situation pointed out that the Prime Minister said in June on the record in the press that this would be sorted out within six months. I do hope that this can be done before the end of this Parliament.

William Hague: On those three questions—[Interruption.] It is indeed Christmas, so it is right to have Christmas generosity on this. On the first question, my hon. Friend, in common with others, expresses his support for the report on the governance of the House. On the second, of course I followed up the question he raised on 27 November, although I cannot comment on any potential outcome. On the third, which is a health matter, I know that my hon. Friend has been assiduous in raising it for his constituents. I will inform my colleagues in the Department of Health of his anxiety about the timetable, and ask them to respond to him.

Kerry McCarthy: This is my fifth contribution this morning, Mr Speaker, so thank you for being so generous. There is growing concern that the Conservatives are considering a rise in VAT after the next election—I very much doubt it will appear in the 18 March Budget statement. May we have a full debate in the new year on the consequences of a rise in VAT for people on low to moderate incomes and on businesses in my constituency, so that we can go into the election fully informed about what that policy would mean?

William Hague: I hope we will have many exchanges and debates on the economy. Of course, any concern about increases in taxation will be about those parties that want higher deficits and higher spending rather than those that control deficits and spending and therefore do not need to increase taxation. Since it is now clear from the last few days that the Labour party wants higher levels of Government spending than we have today, it is for Labour Members to explain how increased taxation will have an impact on the people of this country.

Christopher Pincher: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to dealing with the recommendations of the excellent report from the House of Commons Governance Committee with alacrity, but may I join others in encouraging him to deal with them expeditiously as well? I am thinking particularly of the recommendations concerning the different roles of the Clerk and the subordinate director general. The past three months have been a period of great uncertainty for people both in the House and outside, and that uncertainty needs to be brought to an end so that we all know where we stand.

William Hague: I do not think there will be any contradiction in regard to the need for those matters to be dealt with both expeditiously and with alacrity, and I hope that they will be, although it will, of course, be important for them to be debated in the House so that it can be
	fully consulted. Everyone who works for the House has coped very well with the last few months—all services have been successfully provided and important developments have continued—but now that the report has been published, we shall need to discuss it as quickly as possible.

Matthew Offord: Because there had been no ministerial statements during the week, I attended this morning’s session of oral questions to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to try to establish the Government’s position on the United Nations climate change conference in Lima and the agreement that was reached on Sunday, as it has huge implications for the discussions that will be held in Paris next year. It worries me that the House has not discussed the United Kingdom’s position on the legal structure of the agreement. There has been no discussion about the deferred decisions on ensuring a flow of finance to developing countries, about where the burden for cutting greenhouse gas emissions should lie, or about the dropping of the requirement for countries to provide information about their “prospect reduction targets”. May we please have a debate in Government time, so that we can discuss those important issues?

Mr Speaker: I think we have already had it.

William Hague: They are globally important issues. This morning, as my hon. Friend may know, a written statement was issued to update the House on the outcomes of the conference, and my ministerial colleagues from the Department of Energy and Climate Change were here to answer questions from Members, including topical questions. I am sure that there will be further opportunities to debate the issue before the meeting in Paris next year. Indeed, my hon. Friend may wish to create such an opportunity with the help of the Backbench Business Committee.

Gregg McClymont: Yesterday saw the publication of the long-awaited report of the independent inquiry into excessive pension charges and the selling of pension products, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s. The report gives the full details of the scandal of excessive charging. The Minister for Pensions has said that he is deeply shocked, which is surprising, given that the Leader of the Opposition gave some of the details of the scandal more than two years ago. When the Minister has recovered from his shock in the new year, may we have a debate in Government time to establish how the Government intend to stand up for the hard-working people all over the country who have been ripped off?

William Hague: As has already been said, the Government have a strong record on standing up for hard-working people. However, these pension issues are very important, and there will be opportunities to ask my colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions about them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is also open to him to press for a debate through all the normal means.

Mr Speaker: I hope to accommodate the remaining questioners, but may we please have brief questions, without preamble?

Rehman Chishti: rose—

Mr Speaker: That is about to be exemplified by Mr Rehman Chishti.

Rehman Chishti: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	Local businesses in my constituency have contacted me expressing real concerns about the sale of illegal tobacco in Gillingham, which has previously been named as the capital of illicit cigarette sales. May we have an urgent debate on how the Government are dealing with the problem around the country?

William Hague: The issue of illicit tobacco is taken very seriously. It often involves organised crime, and causes a large loss of revenue at the taxpayer’s expense. Medway is certainly an area of Government work on the problem, involving the police, trading standards authorities and HMRC, and a number of sanctions are available to the various enforcement agencies. However, I will let my ministerial colleagues know of my hon. Friend’s anxiety.

Bob Neill: I am sure my right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that festive cheer in Mottingham has been increased by the Planning Inspectorate’s decision not to allow the demolition of the Porcupine public house, which has been mentioned in the House before. Will he make time for a debate so that we can consider what further financial incentives can be provided to enable community interest groups to take over the running of such valued local facilities?

William Hague: I am happy to join in that festive cheer in the knowledge that a public house has been preserved. Its preservation will be dear to many of us throughout the House and the country, and I congratulate my hon. Friend and his constituents on their work. The Government have, of course, greatly enhanced the ability of communities to preserve assets to which they attach great value, but, if my hon. Friend presses for them in all the normal ways, there will be chances for the House to debate the further development of that policy.

Gavin Williamson: Yesterday we heard the news that unemployment had fallen again in South Staffordshire and the west midlands. That has been largely due to the growth of apprenticeships and, in particular, the fact that Jaguar Land Rover has opened a new engine manufacturing facility in my constituency. Could time be made for a debate on the creation of more apprenticeships, especially in the automotive and aerospace sector, which plays such a key role in the economy of the west midlands?

William Hague: This is a matter of fundamental importance, particularly to the west midlands economy. During the most recent academic year, 850,000 people were in apprenticeships. Two million apprenticeships have been created during the current Parliament, and many of us would like to see 3 million created in the next Parliament as part of our aim to abolish youth unemployment altogether. I hope that, during all the debates on the Budget and the economy, the House will be able to discuss precisely those matters.

Oliver Colvile: As my right hon. Friend knows, I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the private rented sector. We have conducted a couple of inquiries and produced a couple of reports over the past year or so. May we have a debate on the recommendations of those reports, and, in particular, a debate on the proposed review of shared accommodation rates?

William Hague: Those are important issues, and I know that my hon. Friend does very good work on them. We have no Government time to allocate to such debates, but, as I have said to other Members in connection with other subjects, it is open to my hon. Friend to press for them through all the normal channels, including the Backbench Business Committee.

Jeremy Lefroy: May we have a debate on imaginative partnerships between the further education sector and private companies, such as the launch of the Risual academy by Stafford college and Risual, a fast-growing IT consultancy in my constituency?

William Hague: We may not be able to have a debate on that subject immediately, but it is exactly the sort of co-ordination that is bringing great benefits to the economy and to local people, and I know that my hon. Friend’s support for it will be greatly valued.

Julian Smith: Britain has an exceptional trading relationship with the United States, but more can be done to make trade easier for small business in particular. May we have a debate about the way in which the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, or TTIP—the current negotiations for a better deal between the European Union and United States—can bring only opportunities for Britain’s smallest businesses?

William Hague: I hope that TTIP will be discussed regularly, and, indeed that great progress will be made on it in the coming year. It constitutes an opportunity to boost world trade considerably, and to add further to the vital economic relationship that my hon. Friend has described. Our bilateral trade with the United States is the greatest that we have with any country, and we have 1 million people working on each side of the Atlantic in companies that are owned on the other side of the Atlantic. I hope that there will be strong progress on TTIP in the coming year.

Andrew Jones: A few days ago, my constituency team and I became dementia friends following some very good training by our local branch of the Alzheimer’s Society. May we have a debate on how we can boost public understanding of all forms of dementia, making our communities more dementia-friendly and thus helping those who are suffering from this cruel disease, and, of course, their carers as well?

William Hague: As we are not currently having a debate about the issue, it is important for us all to get on with it, which is exactly what my hon. Friend is doing and encouraging in his constituency. We are creating dementia-friendly communities which will help to support those who live with dementia, and we are educating 1 million
	people so that they can become dementia friends. I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for that.
	All of us in the Cabinet have been taught about the issue, and, to date, there are more than 600,000 dementia friends. This is another issue on which we should continue to work hard in the new year.

Mr Speaker: Order. In wishing all parliamentary colleagues, and everyone who works on the parliamentary estate, a merry Christmas and a happy 2015, I am minded to mention that there is one upcoming item on the agenda to which they can look forward with eager anticipation: on Tuesday 13 January in Speaker’s House we will be addressed, in the lecture series for 2015, on the subject of William Pitt by the Leader of the House. He is a very considerable authority on that matter.

Local Government Finance

Kris Hopkins: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on funding for local authorities in England next year.
	This Government inherited the largest deficit in post-war history. Thanks to this Government’s long-term economic plan, that deficit is falling, the economy is growing and employment is at a record high. This Government are putting our public finances back on track. Local government, like every part of the public sector, has made a significant contribution to this. However, the job is not done. As my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated to the House, in coming years very substantial savings must be made in public spending. The Government continue to need to take difficult decisions to put the public finances on a sustainable path.
	In the context of this unprecedented challenge to public finance, we have yet again delivered a settlement that is fair to all parts of the country, whether north or south, urban or rural. English local government is expected to spend over £114 billion this year—around a quarter of all public spending. This settlement therefore recognises that local authorities continue to make a vital contribution to helping pay off the deficit. Once again, the settlement leaves councils with considerable total spending power. As planned, we have kept the overall reduction to 1.8%—lower than last year, and one of the lowest levels of reduction under this Government. If we include the funds the Government have provided to support local transformation, the overall reduction is even lower, at 1.6%.
	Councils facing the highest demand for services continue to receive substantially more funding, and we are continuing to ensure that no council will face a loss of more than 6.4% in its spending power in 2015-16, the lowest level in this Parliament. I am also pleased to announce that all nine authorities eligible for efficiency support grant in 2014-15—Great Yarmouth, Burnley, Chesterfield, East Lindsey, Barrow-in-Furness, Bolsover, Hyndburn, Pendle and Hastings—will have these amounts incorporated into the settlement for 2015-16.
	We also continue to recognise the challenges faced by rural communities. This Government have a clear commitment to rural areas, and consecutive settlements have helped to address the gap between urban and rural spending power. The gap is closing, and that has already benefited rural authorities to the tune of £208 million. We expect the gap to continue to close. In the meantime, the settlement confirms another year of additional resources for the most rural authorities, to recognise the challenges they may face in delivering services. In 2015-16, this grant has increased to £15.5 million.
	But this is no longer just about the amount the Government provide to local authorities through grant. We have deliberately shifted the emphasis from keeping authorities dependent on grant to providing councils with the tools they need to grow and shape their local economies. We have given councils a real stake in stimulating local growth. For 2014-15, authorities’ own estimates show that 91% are expecting a growth in their business
	rates income—growth of £414 million in total. That includes authorities such as Barnsley, which is predicting growth in its business rates income of around £900,000, and which will gain additionally from almost £400,000 of growth that it is predicting within its enterprise zone.
	Through the new homes bonus, councils benefit directly from increasing the number of homes in their area and bringing long-term empty homes back into use. On Tuesday, the Minister for planning and housing, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), announced to the House that £1.2 billion of new homes bonus funding has been provisionally allocated to local authorities in England for 2015-16. This brings the total to almost £3.4 billion since the scheme began.
	Many councils agree that these measures are having a positive impact on their ability to deliver better outcomes in their areas. National growth is the sum of local growth. For Britain to prosper, every part of the country needs to fulfil its potential. Local places know best how to support growth in their local economies. We know that many authorities recognise this. That is why we have devoted such effort to empowering our great cities and communities to drive local growth through a redistribution of power away from Westminster and Whitehall to councils, communities and individuals across the nation.
	To this end, we have established 39 local enterprise partnerships—partnerships between local authorities and business—who decide what the priorities should be for investment in roads, buildings and facilities in their local areas. Through our growth deals, we devolved £12 billion of local growth funding to these partnerships, for them to spend on local priorities over the next five years.
	We are committed to further devolution to increase local democracy, bring better services and deliver more homes and jobs. We hope that Greater Manchester and Sheffield will be the first of many to take advantage of greater devolution of powers, and the Government are open to having discussions with other areas.
	As well as growing their economies, the best authorities are transforming the way they do business. The Government are supporting them as they do so, achieving real savings and, importantly, improving outcomes for the people who use local services. Last month, I announced the latest round of successful bids to the transformation challenge award. We will provide around £90 million in support for 73 projects that will improve services and ultimately save the public sector over £900 million. In total, the latest successful transformation challenge award bids involve 287 partners, including 122 local authorities and 165 other organisations across the public, private and voluntary sectors.
	Increasingly, local authorities are recognising that transformation and further integration has the potential to deliver improved outcomes. Nowhere is this more evident than in relation to health and social care. We are supporting the integration of health and social care services through the better care fund: 97% of local plans have been approved and the £3.8 billion initial contribution from Government has been boosted by local areas to more than £5 billion. This will help achieve significant change in services that will benefit some of the most vulnerable in our society.
	Like all parts of government, councils need to prioritise spending so that it gets to those who need it most. Councils are rising to the challenge. Every council issued a balanced budget for 2014-15. The majority of residents remain satisfied with the way their council runs things. That bears testimony to the great skill that authorities have shown in prioritising and promoting efficiencies.
	Local authorities up and down the country are demonstrating real innovation. I have seen for myself the work under way in Kirklees to support young people who need help in starting their young lives. Our transformation fund investment of £400,000 will bolster the Kirklees Cares project, where children in care are receiving peer support to prepare them for life after leaving care.
	In Durham, a partnership of the police and fire services is using a £500,000 award to bring community volunteers and neighbourhood watch services together; and I was recently in Sunderland, which is one of five areas that had its better care fund plan approved early because it was making such good progress.I met staff from both the health and social care sectors working together in the same room, with the same patients, in a brilliant new community facility that is keeping elderly people out of hospital. Sunderland projects that it can start to cut local accident and emergency admissions by up to 15% in the years ahead as a consequence of this approach.That will save a huge amount of money and provide people with dignity and respect in retirement.
	Last winter, to help local authorities deal with the immediate costs of the severe weather, the Government activated the Bellwin scheme of emergency financial assistance to local authorities. In recognition of the unique scale of the flooding, the terms of the scheme were made more generous. The changes included a reduction in thresholds above which the Government would compensate, and reimbursement at a rate of 100%. This reduction was the first time in the scheme’s 30-year history that thresholds had been reduced in that way. Last month, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government announced a consultation on improvements to the scheme, including permanent lower thresholds and 100% grant rate. Although the consultation does not end until the start of the new year, we have today published illustrative Bellwin thresholds for 2015-16. This will give local authorities a greater degree of financial certainty in planning for emergencies in the case of severe weather.
	With colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions, we have been analysing responses to the Government consultation on how local welfare assistance should be funded in 2015-16. We have been looking at these alongside the Department for Work and Pensions review. Local authorities will continue to be able to offer local welfare assistance from within existing budgets, alongside a range of other services for 2015-16 if they judge it a priority in their area. It would be helpful to many areas to see how much of their existing funding relates to this, so today I can confirm that we have separately identified an amount relating to local welfare provision in each upper-tier authority’s general grant, totalling £129.6 million nationally.
	The Government have always been clear that councils should choose how best to support local welfare needs, because what is right for Croydon will not be right for Cumbria. This allocation will therefore not be ring-fenced
	and we will not be placing any new duties, expectations or monitoring requirements on its use. The Government will carefully consider all responses to the consultation on this settlement, including those that relate to the provision for local welfare over and above existing budgets, and we will take these into consideration when announcing the final settlement in February. Over the last year, councils have increased their reserves by £2.2 billion, and they now stand at a total of £21.4 billion. Authorities should of course maintain a healthy cushion when balancing the books. However, local taxpayers would be right in asking whether such substantial reserves are necessary.
	All councils should be freezing their council tax in 2015-16 and helping people with their cost of living. We are providing additional funding equivalent to a 1% council tax increase, to help councils to freeze. This is the fifth successive year of freeze-funding provided by the Government. This brings the total package to £5 billion, which will save up to £1,075 for an average household over the course of this Parliament. All councils should be taking advantage of this extra Government funding and freezing council tax for hard-working families. Councils choosing to increase should have the courage to put their case to local people. Any council proposing an increase of 2% or more will need to allow local people the opportunity to approve or veto the increase in a referendum. This threshold will apply to all local authorities, including the Greater London authority, fire authorities and police and crime commissioners.
	Parishes are an important part of local government, delivering valuable and valued local services. However, that is not a reason for them to impose inflation-busting increases on their taxpayers. The average band D council tax in England has risen by 2% since 2011-12. The equivalent figure for the parish element is 14.7% over the same period. That is why I would welcome views on whether the highest spending parishes should be subject to the same referendum principle as the rest of local government. There is also a question about whether town and parish councils whose failings have been highlighted in a public interest report should be included.
	Today marks the start of a period of statutory consultation with local government on the settlement, and I welcome its responses. The consultation closes on 15 January 2015. We are publishing full supporting material online and I have placed copies of the consultation paper and other main documents in the Vote Office. This is a fair settlement that continues to recognise the responsibility of local government to find sensible savings and make better use of its resources. It supports business growth, adding to this country’s wealth, and helps to deliver our long-term economic plan. It also enables councils to offer another year of frozen council taxes. I commend this settlement to the House.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement, and at least Ministers have chosen to come to the House today rather than having to be summoned, as happened last year.
	In its recent report “Financial sustainability of local authorities 2014”, the National Audit Office found that the Government
	“will reduce its funding to local authorities by 37% in real terms between 2010-11 and 2015-16”.
	Will the Minister confirm that this is the case, and that the Government are going ahead with a 10% reduction in the main component of Government funding to local authorities in 2015-16, as also reported by the NAO? Councils have experienced the biggest spending reductions in the public sector, and they have done an extraordinary job in trying to deal with that, but they rightly resent the Secretary of State claiming, as he did, that the cuts are “modest” and that Local Government Association fears for the future are “utterly ludicrous”. Does the Minister still agree with those statements, given that in an open letter last month, a large number of council leaders, including 40 Conservatives, said bluntly:
	“Services such as libraries, leisure centres and road maintenance continue to buckle under the strain of cuts and the ever-rising cost of caring for our growing elderly population”?
	The Audit Commission has confirmed that
	“Councils serving the most deprived areas have seen the largest reductions in funding relative to spending”.
	That is still happening. Why is it that the most disadvantaged communities are yet again being hit the hardest? Why is it that by 2017, the city of Liverpool, the most deprived local authority in the country, will have lost over half its Government grant compared with 2010? Why is it that Wokingham is on course to have a higher spending power per household than Leeds and Newcastle, despite those cities’ greater need? Why is it that, having claimed that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden, Minsters have done the very opposite to local government? Given the complacency of the Department for Communities and Local Government, is it any wonder that the National Audit Office found that the Department had
	“a limited understanding of the financial sustainability of local authorities”?
	What is the Minister going to do about that? Councils are showing
	“clear signs of financial stress”.
	What contingency plans do Ministers have to deal with the potential failure of local councils? The truth is that the Government either do not want to know what is going on or do not care. Tough times do indeed require tough decisions, including on spending, but there is no justification whatever for taking the most from those who have the least.
	I have a number of specific questions to put to the Minister. How many councils will face the maximum reduction in spending power of 6.4% in 2015-16? Will he accept the NAO’s advice and in the final settlement publish figures detailing the change in individual local authority income in real terms since 2010-11, so that the cumulative impact of funding reductions is made clear? How have the Government accounted for the better care fund when calculating 2015-16 funding reductions? Can he confirm that the new homes bonus actually takes money away from the most disadvantaged communities and gives it to areas where the new homes would probably have been built in any case? Does he not think that that funding could be more efficiently allocated to areas based on need?
	Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State lost his battle with the Chancellor to save the local welfare assistance fund? It is clear that this year’s separate
	grant will now go and will not be replaced with any new money. That means that councils with the greatest need will face the greatest difficulty, because they are already facing the biggest cuts in funding. How much of the funding held back for the business rates safety net in 2013-14 is required for safety net payments, and what will be the total amount held back in 2015-16? The Minister talks about business growth incentives, so why will he not allow combined authorities to keep 100% of business rate income growth? Why has there been no economic devolution to counties? How will the business rates review affect the proposed revaluation in 2017?
	On the impact on front-line services, 324 libraries have closed since 2011. What assessment has the Minister made of how many more will go as a result of this statement? How many more children’s centres will close, on top of the 578 that have gone since the Secretary of State took office? What effect will this statement have on women’s refuges, school crossing patrols and day centres for the elderly? We have just had an urgent question on the crisis in accident and emergency departments. Has it not occurred to Ministers that one reason why this is happening is because of the cuts that councils have had to make in social care ? That is why the number of people over the age of 90 going to A and E in a blue-light ambulance has increased by nearly 50% in recent years.
	In difficult times what councils need is fairer funding, help with longer-term funding settlements so they can plan ahead to protect services, and more devolution of power so they can work with other public services locally to get the most out of every pound of public funding. Nowhere is that needed more than in health and social care. If the loss of services we have seen already is only part of what the Chancellor and the Secretary of State have in mind for local government in the years ahead, let me tell the Minister that Labour Members will not be joining him in a headlong rush back to the 1930s. What hard-working councillors and communities wanted today was recognition of the increasingly stark choices they face and some practical help. Instead all they have got is Ministers who have no idea what is really going on.

Kris Hopkins: I am really disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman’s tone. There was no sense of guilt or shame about the situation we were left in when we came to power. Let me mention two speeches that were made last week. In one, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor talked about the requirement and need for us to live within our means and to grow our economy in order to be able to support public services. The other speech was about how the deficit was the big test for Labour, and we can see from the right hon. Gentleman’s response today that the Opposition have no chance of meeting that test. They have failed at the first attempt, wanting to borrow and spend more money.
	The Government are confident that councils can respond to the challenging economic circumstances that we inherited, and they are responding. The NAO says that many councils are dealing with that; they have been able to fix and deliver a budget, and to respond to economic emergencies as they have come about. The reality is that all councils need to respond and transform
	their delivery, and despite the right hon. Gentleman’s words, on the ground the authorities are doing that. The Labour authorities in Manchester, Sheffield and Sunderland have faced difficult choices but are transforming their services. They are more open-minded than the Labour team on the Front Bench, ensuring that they care about delivering good services where it is important to people and that they will deal with the circumstances they are left. In answer to his question, we are delivering a reduction of 1.8% this year—if we add the transformation challenge fund moneys in, the figure drops to 1.6%. Given the economic circumstances that this Government picked up four years ago, that represents considerable movement in the right direction.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about the most deprived authorities. The 10% most deprived authorities will continue to receive 40% more than the least deprived areas, and that is important. It is a standard that we have set and we will continue to do it. However, this is not just about grant; it has to be about promoting businesses. It is about increasing growth within a particular area. That is why this Government have set about, through city challenge, growth deals and the retention of business rates, giving councils the opportunities to grow the moneys in their community. There is no greater amount than that from house building, so the new homes bonus, worth £1.2 billion, is really important.
	However, there are difficult challenges to address. The better care fund is there to address one of the fundamental challenges to public services which for generations councils and health authorities have failed to address—£5 billion to be used to work with local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and acute hospitals to deliver care for the most vulnerable people. Labour Members, the Labour Government and the House historically have failed to address that. We are facing up to this problem, and getting those social workers, doctors, health workers in the same place so that they can deliver services. That is the right thing to do.
	We appreciate that welfare provision is important to people, so we are identifying the spending this year in next year’s money so that users of services and people who may want to call upon that money can understand how much money has been spent historically in this area. It will be up to the local council to set those priorities and make sure that that money is available.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about counties not being included in some of the devolution, but this Government are completely open-minded on devolution and look forward to all areas coming forward with ideas about how we can devolve powers.[Interruption.]
	Finally, there was an ask about women’s refuges. The Prime Minister himself thinks that this is extremely important and intervened on the issue of women’s refuges and domestic violence and saw that an extra £10 million was put in.[Interruption.] Despite the fact that this country faced an economic disaster in 2010, we are delivering a fair budget for local authorities, making sure that they can set the priorities they believe are important to them. [Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. As we progress through this statement, it would be really helpful if the Secretary of State stopped shouting and gesticulating across the Chamber, and if Mr Sawford
	you stopped as well, so that we can hear the questions and the answers. Mr Docherty, I do not need you saying, “Shame”, as you chatter through just about everything. Perhaps we can make progress now.

Mark Pawsey: Households across the country will be pleased that the Government are making funds available for an unprecedented fifth year to enable a freeze in council tax. The Minister will be aware that Conservative-controlled Rugby borough council has gone further in the current year, by giving council tax payers a rebate of 3%. However, given the increasing satisfaction with the services provided by local government as shown in surveys, does the Minister agree that councils have risen to the challenge and shown themselves to be very effective at doing more with less?

Kris Hopkins: I congratulate Rugby borough council on its excellent work. I have been there myself and seen the quality of the services it is delivering. It is also setting out wider plans to deliver more houses and promote business growth. It has also frozen its council tax, which means that residents will benefit from the fact that they have not had to pay that £1,075 over the past five years.

Clive Betts: The Minister said in his statement that no council will face a loss of more than 6.4% in its spending power next year, the lowest level in this Parliament. Why does he think that that is a matter for self-congratulation? Will he confirm that the percentage cut that local councils will face in the next year will be bigger than the cut faced by all central Government Departments throughout the whole of this Parliament?

Kris Hopkins: It is the lowest level of this Parliament. We can achieve that because we are in a far better economic situation than we were when we came to power. More money may have been taken from this particular area of public service, but the fact is it represents a quarter of all public service, which is significant. I do not relish the idea of taking money off councils, especially as people are working extremely hard to deliver quality services. I say to the hon. Gentleman that he served in a Government who crashed the economy and we are picking up the pieces. We want to support local councils, and I would be proud to work with them to deliver quality services.

David Nuttall: Bury council constantly claims that it has not had a fair deal. Will the Minister please confirm for the record that neither he nor his officials have picked on Bury council for special treatment and that Bury council is funded on exactly the same basis as every other council regardless of whether it is in the north or the south and of which party controls the council?

Kris Hopkins: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The economy in the north is thriving and local authorities are leading the way. What I said in the statement was that we offer a fair deal to all areas—whether north or south, rural or urban. If the local authority is not content with what it has been offered, it should come and speak to me. I will be speaking to local authorities
	in the new year, and I am more than willing to talk to Bury about its council settlement.

Meg Hillier: Even a borough such as mine in Hackney, which is extremely well run by Mayor Jules Pipe, will face enormous cuts in the future. The poorest of my constituents who are already finding life very hard will be squeezed until the pips squeak when social services and other budgets have to face the brunt of these cuts. How can the Minister come to this House and say that this is a good settlement for the people of Britain?

Kris Hopkins: Even the most deprived areas have an opportunity to grow the moneys they receive by promoting business. Newham, which is struggling in many ways, has still managed to grow its business rate base by some £7 million. It is up to local councils to set as a priority supporting the most vulnerable people. We have talked about social services, and it is important that councils make some choices in that area. The opportunity to grow the amount of money they receive is there, and we put those mechanisms in place.

Edward Leigh: Will the Minister continue to address the grotesque divide in central Government funding of poorer rural authorities and urban authorities? For instance, my own district of West Lindsey, which is only 45 minutes from Hull, receives a staggering £282 per head less every year than Hull. That is simply unfair. People are paying £120 more in council tax, and I have in south-west Gainsborough the poorest ward in the whole country. Something needs to be done, and we need to have a fair settlement for rural authorities with a sparsity factor.

Kris Hopkins: I recognise the problem. Despite the economic circumstances, we have sought to close that gap between rural and urban areas. The fact that we have increased the rural grant this year to £15.5 million goes some way to achieving that. I say again that the East Riding of Yorkshire, not far from my hon. Friend’s constituency, has managed to grow its business rate moneys by some £5 million. Both deprived and rural areas have the opportunity to grow the moneys that come to their local council.

David Winnick: May I remind the Minister that as far as Walsall is concerned there has been an overall reduction of nearly 40% since 2010-11? Further reductions will have an even more devastating effect on front-line services in my borough. It is war—there is no other way to describe it. It is outright war on the most deprived areas, and it is absolutely shameful that this Government continue with such policies.

Kris Hopkins: In the few years I have been in this House, I have always held the hon. Gentleman in high respect. But it is shameful to say that I or my colleagues would go out of our way to pursue the most vulnerable. We want to preserve and protect those most vulnerable people, which is why we have given local councils the opportunity to make choices about how they spend their money.

Annette Brooke: On local welfare assistance schemes, will the Minister
	clarify whether any extra money is being given to councils to provide those services? In the event of no ring-fencing and no monitoring, will he confirm how a family in crisis through no fault of their own will cope on a Friday afternoon if their council says, “No, we are not providing anything”?

Kris Hopkins: There is no additional money in this. I said in the statement that if, during the consultation process, a local authority or interested party wants to write to us about additional moneys over and above those noted in the Budget, we will consider its contribution in our final consideration of the settlement. In devolving powers to local authorities and enabling them to make choices, local authorities need to be transparent and open about the choices they make. My right hon. Friend says that there are people who need support. We have identified the money so that people will know what money has gone into a local council historically and been used in that area. I challenge local people to make sure that those authorities make the right choice to protect those individuals in need.

Nicholas Dakin: What this statement manages to combine is further savage cuts in spending to local authorities with further devolution of blame to local authorities. Will the Minister commit to publishing the financial cumulative impact of the cuts over the life of this Government on each local authority?

Kris Hopkins: The cuts have had to be made as a consequence of the Labour Government’s failure to manage the economy. They are what happened as a result of the mess that was left. We have had to make difficult choices. Local authorities are far more sensible and respectful in trying to address that matter than Opposition Members. I am more likely to have a trustworthy conversation about trying to deliver those services with someone from a local authority than with any Opposition Member.

Bob Neill: I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on the statement and urge them not to take any lessons from a party that produced record deficits and doubled the council tax. Does he accept that it is critical that if we are to have genuine local accountability, it must be in a climate in which we continue to move away from old-fashioned dependency on central Government grant and to break down the ring-fencing that has inhibited innovation, as we have seen demonstrated by the better care fund, which deals with one of the key pressures on upper-tier authorities?

Kris Hopkins: I respect the wise words of my hon. Friend. He is right: the council tax has dropped 11% as a consequence of the actions that we have taken. It doubled under the previous Government. There is a need to move away from grant and to grow in local economies. The best councils are now stepping up to the mark and growing those economies. On the better care fund, it is a difficult issue, but we are facing up to it. Where previous Governments have failed to do this, we
	will deliver savings and ensure that those vulnerable people are getting a decent service and the dignity that they need.

Kate Green: What assessment has the Minister made of the likely impact on some of the most vulnerable people—disabled people, low-income families with children and women fleeing domestic violence—of his plans not to put more money into local welfare assistance and not to protect that funding?

Kris Hopkins: As I have already said, the 10% of areas that are most deprived will receive 40% more than the least deprived. Issues of domestic violence are important to this Government and we have put additional moneys—some £10 million— into that. We will constantly monitor resources related to the issues the hon. Lady raises.

Philip Davies: On the Government Benches, we understand why spending reductions need to be made, even if the Labour party does not. Does the Minister agree that local councils should treat all parts of their local areas fairly? He will know, for example, that Bradford council has drastically cut children’s centre provision in his constituency and mine, while protecting its Labour heartlands at the centre of Bradford, even though they have children’s centres virtually around the corner from each other. What can he do to ensure that all parts of local authorities get a fair crack of the whip and that political games are not played by local councils to punish more Conservative parts of their area?

Kris Hopkins: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and obviously I know the areas he is talking about. All the Labour children’s centres are being protected and all the Conservative ones are being closed. The fact that he has raised this in Parliament—[Interruption.] Centres in Labour wards are being protected and centres in Conservative wards are being closed. The public have heard that and will make a judgment on it.

Jim Cunningham: I was rather surprised that the Secretary of State did not make today’s statement, given that a quarter of the Government’s budget is spent by local government. He did the same thing the other day on the fire brigade.
	This announcement will not help anybody in Coventry to participate. We need to find another £65 million for the libraries, for instance, and the welfare budget will affect a lot of people from among the worst-off. Equally, we have bed blocking because we cannot get social workers, which affects University hospital Coventry. The settlement is an utter disgrace and it is no good the Minister blaming the previous Labour Government when he and I know that it was the bankers he is apologising for.

Kris Hopkins: I wondered how long it would take for the bankers to come up in this conversation. The Minister responsible for local government makes the local government finance settlement announcement, and I am pleased to do so today. If the hon. Gentleman wants to grow his local economy, rather than coming here, not wanting to talk about his failures as part of the Labour Administration, he needs to go back to Coventry and
	think about ways in which to grow the business base and encourage more housing. That will create better outcomes for the people he alleges to represent.

Andrew George: Cornwall, the poorest region in the country, is already doing more with less. Before the Conservative opposition in Cornwall runs another shameless campaign for a council tax freeze as the council faces a cut of a third of its budget over the next three years, causing carnage in the local authority, will the Minister reflect on his statement today that he is closing the gap between underfunded rural authorities, such as Cornwall, and urban authorities? At the rate he is going, he might close the gap by the next ice age. Will he please go back to the drawing board?

Kris Hopkins: An extra £4 million is definitely an increase—it was £11.5 million and is now £15.5 million. The Government are going a long way towards closing the gap. If the hon. Gentleman believes that more money is required, there is a mechanism by which that can be achieved, as the council can increase the council tax. He should trust the people of Cornwall and put it to the vote.

Jack Dromey: Yesterday, on top of 1,400 police officers already gone, West Midlands police service suffered a cut of £23 million, being treated less fairly than Surrey. Today, on top of nearly £500 million of cuts, Birmingham will see a further cut of £348 million over the next two years, being treated less fairly than Surrey. Is the National Audit Office right when it says that those with the greatest need, such as Birmingham, are suffering the biggest percentage cuts? Is it not absolutely wrong that everything that this Government do is characterised by rank unfairness?

Kris Hopkins: Birmingham is not being pursued in any greater way than anybody else, but it has its own challenges. There is a report out about the effectiveness of its leadership, and it needs to respond appropriately to it. I wonder what savings can be made in that authority, bearing in mind the poor leadership over recent years.

Jason McCartney: Labour-run Kirklees council has recently managed to find £200,000 to lend to the struggling Castle and Minster credit union. There is no guarantee that it will get that money back. Does the Minister agreed that that is the kind of can-do attitude we need more of from our Labour-run councils?

Kris Hopkins: Being from west Yorkshire, I have seen some interesting responses from different leaders of Kirklees council over the years. I have also been able to see some excellent work there. Credit unions are an important part of the local economy and if the council is offering that service and can get the money returned, it is the right thing to do, but it is public money and the council must be accountable for it. I am sure that the public will be watching where that money has gone.

Heidi Alexander: In his statement, the Minister said that local authorities continue to make a vital contribution to helping pay off the deficit.
	The truth is that they are making a disproportionate contribution. Lewisham tells me that at some point in the year 2017-18, if it covers the costs of social care and waste collection, it will have £20 million left to spend on all other services. If the Minister was the leader of Lewisham council, what would he stop providing: leisure centres, libraries or parks?

Kris Hopkins: It is important that local government makes a contribution, as £114 billion is a huge amount of money. Today's announcement involves £49 billion on its own. If I were leader of Lewisham council, I would build its business base. Even the most deprived areas can do it. Newham has managed to grow its economy by some £7 million, and if Newham can do it, I am sure Lewisham can as well.

Nigel Mills: I welcome the extra year's funding for council tax freezes. Will the Minister join me in urging Amber Valley borough council, in its one year under Labour rule, to extend the five-year council tax freeze that operated when the Conservatives were in control?

Kris Hopkins: The public of Amber Valley will be watching what the Labour council does. We have given a significant amount of money, £5 billion, to enable councils to freeze their council tax for the past five years. I am sure that the public will make their decision in early May as a consequence of the choices that councils make.

Helen Goodman: When the Government abolished the social fund and transferred responsibility to local authorities, they said it was an administrative change. Now the Minister has come to the House and said that there is no additional money and that this is discretionary spend on the part of local authorities. Is that not truly the return of local poor boards and to the 1930s?

Kris Hopkins: I have said already that it is important that local communities can understand what has been spent and can see in their councils’ budget lines what choices local authorities have made. I trust local authorities to make those choices to protect those individuals. That is the whole point of localism, and being accountable for those choices at the ballot box is the right approach. We have clearly indicated how much money there is, and the most vulnerable individuals can be protected if councils make the right choices.

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend agree to meet the leaders of Christchurch and East Dorset councils to discuss the work they have done to improve the quality of services for taxpayers by having shared services? Would he also be willing to discuss why he rejected their bid for funding under the transformation challenge award when it seemed to satisfy all the criteria for part A of the scheme?

Kris Hopkins: I would be absolutely delighted to meet my hon. Friend’s councils. They have done some exemplary work in sharing services and we want to ensure that we share that excellent work with other authorities through the transformation network so that they can do it, too. There were some exceptional bids for the award scheme
	and we have had to make difficult choices. His councils were unlucky this time, but perhaps in future bidding rounds they might be successful.

Stephen Timms: The Minister is right repeatedly to commend Newham council. The social fund, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) mentioned, was the ultimate safety net against destitution. On the basis of the Minister’s statement, can he give any assurance that the replacement local welfare assistance will continue to be available where it is needed?

Kris Hopkins: I was very complimentary earlier about Newham and the fact that it has managed to grow its base. When making choices about how to ensure that those vulnerable people are looked after, which both the hon. Gentleman and I also want to ensure, the council will no doubt consider the fact that it has increased its reserves by some £46 million in the past year, a significant amount of money that could be used to look after those vulnerable individuals.

Matthew Offord: It has been reported that the Local Government Association said that public services would buckle under the cuts, but does the Minister agree that that does not appear to be happening on the ground? In my local authority, the London borough of Barnet, over £70 million has been taken out of the annual budget since 2010, 77% of those savings through efficiency in the back office. At the same time public satisfaction with services has increased from 53% to 75%. Does the Minister now feel vindicated?

Kris Hopkins: Members of the House can feel vindicated that they made the right choices. Labour said that it would be an economic disaster if we took the money away from regional development agencies, but we now lead the G8 in growth. A million jobs were going to go, according to Labour, but 1.7 million jobs have been delivered. Local authorities are also stepping up to the plate. They are making the choices to deliver good-quality services with a reduced amount of money and they can be very proud of what they have done.

Mike Gapes: Labour-led Redbridge council has re-introduced weekly refuse collections, brought in free bulk waste collections and, to help local businesses, introduced 30 minutes’ free parking. All those proposals were in the manifesto on which the council was elected. Despite the legacy of the previous Con-Dem council and the problems emanating from the Con-Dem Government, we are supposed to pay £70 million in the next three years. What figure will be taken out in addition, and does that mean that the improved local services will be put at risk?

Kris Hopkins: I was beginning to wonder which party was in if the council had introduced weekly bin collections and free parking. Perhaps we can look at what reserves the council has. Councils across the country have increased their reserves by some £2.2 billion, taking the grand total to £21.4 billion, a huge amount of money. Some of those councils can make some choices that would make the whole system work better.

Andrew Gwynne: Has the Minister had time to digest the findings of the survey of local government finance directors conducted by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, which shows that their confidence in their ability to continue funding services has plummeted? Will he consider the findings, including a desire for councils to be funded in a long-term and sustainable way, rather than by “stopgap” measures such as the new homes bonus and the council tax freeze grant?

Kris Hopkins: No, I have not read the CIPFA report, but I have listened to the public, who have said that they continue to have confidence in the quality services offered by local authorities.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Minister aware of the damage he is doing to local government all over the country with massive cuts year on year, while demand increases among the poorest people in our community? By the end of the next financial year my borough council will have had its income cut by 50%. That is a massive cut for an inner-city borough with a very large number of poor children, and a very large number of needs in the social care and many other areas. Can the Minister think for a moment of what the cumulative effect of all this destruction of local government is doing to local communities, to jobs and, in the long run, to the achievement of many people in schools and other places?

Kris Hopkins: I repeat that overall the budget will be reduced by 1.6%. Bearing in mind that the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported prior to 2010 left a deficit of £163 billion, getting to the point where we have to reduce our budget by only 1.6% is testament to the work done to ensure that we get things back on track, rather than reckless spending, which the hon. Gentleman may suggest.

Gareth Thomas: Harrow local authority faces some £25 million in funding cuts next year, including the possible closure of the popular North Harrow and Rayners Lane libraries and virtually all our children’s centres. Given that Harrow faces a further £50 million worth of cuts in future years, can the Minister say when Harrow might expect a fairer funding settlement?

Kris Hopkins: All local authorities across the country are facing difficult decisions. What efficiencies has the hon. Gentleman’s local authority put in place? What business growth has it stimulated to enable it to address the challenges that he talks about? If he believes that the council needs to raise more money, there is a mechanism for it to do so. He should suggest the amount and test that opinion among the public.

Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I notice that on today’s Order Paper there are 32 written statements by the Government, and Mr Speaker has kindly granted two urgent questions on one day. On the last day of the Session, is it on for the Government to put down 32 statements, many of which could and should have been oral statements so that Members could hold the Government to account for their policies?

Dawn Primarolo: I will take that as a rhetorical question, on the basis that it is not a point of order or a matter for the Chair, but when we have concluded the next business on the Select Committee statement, the Adjournment provides for a wide-ranging debate. It is up to the Government to decide how many oral or written statements they put before the House; it is not within the remit of the Chair.

National Planning Policy Framework

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Select Committee statement

Dawn Primarolo: Mr Clive Betts will speak on his subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and call Mr Betts to respond to these in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions and should be brief, not statements. We do not need any background information. Members on the Front Bench may take part in the questioning. I call the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, Mr Clive Betts.

Clive Betts: I am delighted to present the Committee’s report and I thank in particular our Committee specialist, Kevin Maddison, and specialist adviser, Kelvin MacDonald, whose hard work and expertise have made a major contribution to the report. As has been customary with reports from the Committee, this report was agreed unanimously.
	Three years ago this week we published our report on the draft national planning policy framework which, at the request of the Government, we had closely scrutinised. We were encouraged that the Government paid close attention to our findings at that time and accepted 30 of our 35 recommendations. By listening to and acting upon the concerns that we raised, the Government were able to make big improvements so that when the final version of the NPPF was published in March 2012, it was well received for the simplification that it brought to the planning system. The NPPF, in the words of the then Minister, now the Minister for Universities, Science and Cities, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), reduced
	“over a thousand pages of often impenetrable jargon into around 50 pages of clearly written guidance”.
	The NPPF was a bold, radical and much needed change. Given that it was such a big change, it was inevitable that there would be unforeseen problems and that a couple of years down the line some changes would be needed to it. No Government could have carried out such a wide-ranging reform and expected it to work perfectly from the off. This was the motivation for our inquiry, which led to our report. Our aim was to take a comprehensive look at the NPPF as it was operating in practice, to identify any sticking points or unintended consequences and to make recommendations for how they should be addressed. Our approach was thorough: 300 submissions were made to the Committee, we called 45 witnesses, we had discussions with 60 representatives from parish and town councils and community groups, and we made visits to the Planning Inspectorate and to councils in Gloucestershire. We based our recommendations on the evidence we found.
	We found overall that there is still strong support for the principles of the NPPF and the simplification that it has brought. We do not need to tear it up and start again. There are, however, a number of emerging concerns
	that people have raised with us about inappropriate development in their communities. Much of this arises as a result of speculative planning applications by developers. Although the NPPF is clear about the importance of sustainable development, for many people, sadly, the absence of a local plan has created an easy route to unsustainable development. In our report, we set out a number of steps that should be taken to address these concerns.
	The key to preventing undesirable development is for councils to get their local plans in place. Local plans were first introduced in 2004, but two fifths of authorities have still not adopted one. This is not a problem with the NPPF, but the NPPF envisages and is based on a plan-led system. The NPPF has a presumption in favour of sustainable development, but that golden thread running through the framework is linked to the development of local plans. One cannot have a plan-led system without plans. Councils that fail to adopt a plan surrender their ability to influence the future development of their local area and leave their communities exposed to speculative development. We therefore call for a statutory requirement for every council to put a local plan in place within three years.
	Some councils may not have shown the political will or made available the necessary resources to develop local plans, but we received evidence of a number of other issues that have delayed their production. The planning inspector’s approach can be a barrier to councils getting plans in place. The process of producing a plan has been likened to a game of snakes and ladders: councils can spend years drawing up a plan only for the inspector, on examination, to find it unsound and send the council right back to square one. This is frustrating and wasteful, especially if the plan comes unstuck on just one particular issue.
	We call for the Government to allow plans to be partially adopted when the bulk of the work has been done. When an inspector is happy with the bulk of a plan, he should consider finding it sound, subject to an early review. Such an approach was taken in Dacorum, to widespread acclaim. We could not understand why the Planning Inspectorate did not see that as a model for others to follow. Inspectors should also give more support to councils throughout the plan production process. The assessment of housing need has emerged as a particular bone of contention. There is a clear need for an agreed methodology against which inspectors can test strategic housing market assessments.
	Another sticking point for local plans is a duty to co-operate. The Government should consult on appropriate incentives and penalties to encourage councils to co-operate better. Councils such as Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury, which we visited, should be rewarded for choosing to group together. Where combined authorities exist, a duty should be placed on them to produce a joint core strategy for the area they cover.
	Problems identifying a five-year supply of housing land have left many areas without an adopted local plan. Up and down the country, in places as diverse as Leeds and Forest of Dean, problems have been caused by developers claiming that sites are unviable in order to obtain planning permission on more lucrative sites, against the wishes of the council and its communities
	and also delaying the local plan process. To address this, the NPPF should be amended to make it clear that all sites with planning permission should be counted towards a five-year supply. Moreover, developers are taking a pessimistic view about the future viability of sites. They refuse to accept that brownfield sites that are unviable now may well be viable in five years’ time, and therefore look to add more greenfield sites to the five-year supply. We call for a much more transparent approach to the assessment of viability. Developers should be required to open their books and account must be taken of future projections of viability.
	We must make better use of previously used land. The NPPF is clear that brownfield land should be developed first, but a lack of resources means that this often does not happen in practice. The Government have launched some eye-catching initiatives, but they do not address the costs of making the land fit for building. In order to deliver their own policy, we call on the Government to establish a brownfield remediation fund.
	Next, we must update the NPPF to ensure that it gives greater protection to town centres. Planning policy must face up to the fact that changing shopping habits, particularly with online shopping, mean that town centre uses are also changing. The Welsh Government are producing a new 21st-century town centre planning policy, and we must do the same in England. Councils must look to reduce the size of their retail areas, which are often too large for modern needs. To do this effectively, we need to manage and plan the change. Our evidence was strongly opposed to the new permitted development rights that allow shops and banks to become homes without the need for planning permission. It is too random, and risks hollowing out the commercial heart of our town centres in an unplanned way. Councils have to be able to plan strategically for the future of their communities through their local plans. These permitted development rights must be revoked.
	Finally, the Government must ensure that the NPPF delivers the sustainable development that it promised. Steps must be taken to ensure that equal weight is given to environmental and social factors as well as the economic ones. Development must be accompanied by the infrastructure necessary to support it.
	Those are some of the steps that the Government should take. They should also carefully monitor the impact of the NPPF. Regrettably, it stopped collecting important data about what is being built, and so we no longer know how many homes are being built on brownfield land or what percentage of retail development is built on out-of-town sites. Ministers should not be making policy decisions in the dark. The Government need to establish a set of data to monitor the impact of the NPPF against a small number of key aims.
	In summary, the NPPF has, overall, been a success. It has consolidated planning policy and made it more accessible to professionals and the public alike. The Government should be proud of their achievement, but they should not be defensive about the changes we say are needed. With a major reform, there will always be issues that have to be addressed. Three years ago, the Government and the then Minister embraced our report on the draft NPPF and acted on our recommendations. I very much hope that the current Minister will be equally positive in his response to this report. We must build on the success of the NPPF to give communities
	the protections they seek, to deliver development that is truly sustainable, and to ensure that the NPPF becomes a document in which everyone can have confidence.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his Committee’s work, not only in this excellent report but previously. The report contains a number of issues that I would like to raise, primarily local plans.
	Of course, a plan-led system needs plans. I was disturbed to hear the hon. Gentleman say that only two fifths of local authorities have a plan in place. Two of the local authorities that I represent do not have a plan. That is causing them severe problems with speculative developers. It also means that parish and town councils are reluctant to embark on neighbourhood plans, which are really important. An example of these problems is in a bit of evidence that his Committee was given from Kingswood parish council in my constituency. It had plenty of sites available, but a speculative developer has emerged on the worst possible site, and it looks as though the district council will be unable to resist granting that permission.
	The Government should cut the three-year requirement to have a plan in place to a year and a half. They should adopt a carrot-and-stick approach, forcing councils to introduce the plans but also providing resources to help to them to do it. Small local authorities in my constituency are very short of forward planning resources. The Government should also make it easier to adopt plans. A lot of developments cause problems when infrastructure is not in place, as in the case of the 2,500-house development proposed in Chesterton in my constituency.

Clive Betts: The hon. Gentleman is right that local plans are at the heart of this. We set out a number of ways in which the process could be improved and simplified. At the Planning Inspectorate, we were shown boxes of documents just for one local plan in one area. It has all got a bit too complicated. He is right about neighbourhood plans. They are a success where they have been put in place, but there is an issue about the relationship between neighbourhood plans and local plans, particularly when the neighbourhood plan comes first and then has to be related to the local plan. His point about infrastructure is well made, and it is mentioned in our recommendations.

Mark Reckless: I had mistakenly thought that this Government were intending to localise planning decisions. Does the hon. Gentleman think it is possible to make an objective assessment, as the Government purport to do, with consultants or otherwise, on housing need in a particular area? Would it not be more sensible to allow local authorities to make these decisions as appropriate, perhaps with financial incentives through the new homes bonus or business rates?

Clive Betts: Assessment of housing need is problematic, and the evidence we received was that often local authorities would work for a long time on it, only for the Planning Inspectorate to arrive at the end of the process, decide that its methodology and conclusions were different and then send the local authorities back to the drawing board. We think that the Planning Inspectorate could work more closely with authorities during the process,
	but we also feel—I think local authorities generally agree with this—that if the Planning Inspectorate, right at the beginning of the process, laid down in guidance a consistent methodology, most councils would welcome that. Indeed, when Lord Matthew Taylor undertook his report on planning guidance, he suggested that that was an area on which further guidance would be welcome.

William Cash: May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his Committee on an excellent report and on the balanced way in which they have gone about it, paying tribute where it needs to be paid and making constructive criticisms where they are deserved? On Tuesday I presented to the House the Local Planning and Housing Bill, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to look at, if he has not already done so. It has been printed and deals with matters such as local plans, neighbourhood plans, housing supply, local development orders, affordable housing, land banking, duration of planning permission, development on greenfield, green belt and brownfield sites, and the definition of sustainable housing development. I hope the hon. Gentleman will find some of the Bill’s ideas helpful and I would be grateful if we could talk about it on a future occasion.

Clive Betts: I would certainly be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman when I have had a chance to read his Bill, which is on my Christmas reading list and seems to address exactly the sorts of issues the Committee considered. I emphasise that this is a Committee report. The whole of the Committee worked extremely hard and went on the visits, and we agreed the recommendations unanimously.

Bob Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on one unintended consequence and offer advice on it? One local authority in my part of Essex has decided to plonk several thousand houses on the extremities of its district, miles away from its major centres of population but right on the doorstep of urban Colchester. Is there not a flaw in the NPPF if that sort of situation is being allowed to happen?

Clive Betts: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I cannot comment on or have knowledge of every particular planning development throughout the country. Clearly, there are issues of contention where housing need in one area has to be met by putting housing in another area. The duty to co-operate, which should resolve that, has not been working in all circumstances. We went to Gloucestershire and found three councils working very well together, but even they said that they did not always have terribly good relationships with the councils next door that were not part of their process. A look needs to be taken at the whole issue of co-operation and how it can be improved.

Bob Neill: May I join in the congratulations to the hon. Gentleman and his Committee on this very good and useful report? I have a lot of sympathy for many of its recommendations. On partial adoption of plans and the statutory duty, has the Committee considered what might be done specifically to simplify the plan development process? Councils have sometimes had eight-plus years to develop local plans. If we are going to impose a duty, should we
	not also consider how we can reduce the amount of information that goes into the plans; how they can be made more strategic rather than needlessly complicated; and how in particular we can deal with the delays that are sometimes caused to planning authorities by statutory consultees? If there are going to be penalties for planning authorities, should there not also be penalties for statutory consultees when they delay the process?

Clive Betts: The hon. Gentleman’s last point is a very good one. We did not take particular evidence on it, but it does aggravate councils up and down the country. We made a recommendation that a look should be taken at how the process could be simplified. We did not go into the specifics, but boxes of documents at the Planning Inspectorate for one local plan for a relatively small district showed how complicated the process has become. At a time of spending and resource constraints, many councils are struggling to finish that complicated process. We think that the Government, the Planning Inspectorate and local government should sit down together and revise and simplify the process.

Nick Herbert: As a strong supporter of localism and neighbourhood planning in particular, may I echo the warm welcome for the hon. Gentleman’s Committee’s report, which correctly identifies a number of the issues confronting local communities? May I also join in his plea to the Minister to pay attention to the recommendations, to respond to them constructively and as soon as possible, and in particular to deal with the problem of the loophole that is allowing speculative development applications, with developers circling villages like hawks, waiting to pounce on greenfield sites that are not in identified local or neighbourhood plans, and as a result undermining faith in the localism we promised?

Clive Betts: That sentiment was expressed very strongly to us when we met the 60 representatives of community groups and parish groups. We consistently heard the message that people did not feel in control of what was happening in their own areas. If there was no local plan in place, they felt completely unprotected against individual applications for developments that they felt would be unsustainable. The right hon. Gentleman gave evidence to the Committee on precisely those points and we took that very much into account in our recommendations.

Mark Pawsey: May I thank the Chair of the Committee for his accurate representation of our report and pay tribute to him for the way in which he brought people together—Members and witnesses—throughout our inquiry? I am sure he will have seen the recent report by the Home Builders Federation which shows that planning permissions for new homes are running at 200,000 a year for the first time in many years. That is evidence of a simpler and more easily understood system, but we heard concerns from individuals and groups about the operation of the NPPF. The evidence showed that the greatest challenges occurred in those areas where there was no local plan—this is a plan-led system—but that people have little to fear when the local authority has a plan in place. Therefore,
	the Committee was entirely right to call for a statutory requirement for local authorities to get their plan in place promptly.
	We also identified one or two areas where the NPPF could be strengthened, one of which relates to housing land supply, whereby those authorities that have identified large sites that are not deliverable within the five years are vulnerable to speculative applications. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Committee was entirely right in calling for that matter to be addressed?

Clive Betts: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is also a member of the Committee, for his contribution to the report, particularly the way in which he focused on the problems with the five-year supply of housing and the definitions of viability. Indeed, sites where planning permission has actually been given are not necessarily automatically factored into the five-year supply, and our report calls for that to be addressed. The hon. Gentleman did not mention this, but he has also been a great champion of what more we can do to protect the high street and town and city centres.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman praised the joint core strategy process in Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury, but will he acknowledge that there are huge problems with local consent even there? For instance, Leckhampton parish council produced a well thought out and substantial application for local green space status under the NPPF, but it was told that it could not use it before the JCS process because it would pre-empt the plan-making process; that it could not use it during the JCS process because it was more appropriate at local plan level; and that it could not use it in the local plan afterwards if the land had already been allocated to a development in the JCS. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those kinds of Kafka-esque techniques for defeating the wishes of local residents are not in the spirit of the NPPF or of localism?

Clive Betts: The hon. Gentleman’s comments show that even when authorities make genuine attempts to co-operate, it does not always result in sweetness and light. We also identified a problem with the relationship between neighbourhood plans and local plans. That needs to be clarified because there is a lot of concern—particularly when a neighbourhood plan comes before a local plan—that there can be misunderstandings about the relative status of the two.

Fiona Bruce: May I congratulate the Committee on an excellent report? Suspension of the local plan for Cheshire East council, covering my constituency, is causing untold concern in areas such as Congleton, Sandbach and Alsager, despite a huge of volume of work by Cheshire East council. I therefore thank the Committee for highlighting many points, including the need for clarification of what sustainable development actually means, the need to facilitate partial adoption, and the inclusion of housing consents in planning numbers, which would go a long way to help my council in finalising its plan.
	In the meantime, while the Minister considers those points, will the Chair of the Committee join me in asking Ministers to speed up the process for the formulation
	of neighbourhood plans? No fewer than 14 such plans are now in train in the Cheshire East area, but these are small communities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a clear, quick process, free of bureaucracy and with the appropriate resources and support, so that the plans can finalised in early course?

Clive Betts: There is widespread support for the concept of neighbourhood plans, but there is some concern that poorer communities may not be able to adopt the process as easily as more affluent ones. That goes back to the issue of the relative status of neighbourhood and local plans if, for example, 14 neighbourhood plans are being developed but there is no local plan.
	We think that the definition of sustainable development in the NPPF is a good one—it draws on Brundtland and on the five principles—and we do not want to change it. The problem is that the definition goes on to say that sustainable development is defined by everything in the NPPF, and we thought that that rather circular argument was unnecessary.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend and his Select Committee on producing this excellent report. It raises several issues about the national planning policy framework and how it operates in practice, and the Government will need to address those issues. I am particularly pleased that it echoes much of the Lyons report, commissioned by Labour, which deals with critical issues such as how to get local authorities to produce local plans and the need for more land to be made available to support housing and infrastructure development.
	I particularly want to stress that I agree with my hon. Friend’s findings on town centres. Did his Committee receive evidence from local authorities that are finding that allowing a change of use from office to residential, under permitted development rights and without planning permission, is hurting local businesses and leading to a shortage of much needed office space in some areas?

Clive Betts: The specific regulations on permitted development rights were not about offices, but about shops and banks. However, we did receive some evidence on that. Concerns have been identified, particularly in London, about the loss of business and office space to residential use.
	I want to make two points about town centres. First, local authorities—I am a great localist—did not get the message that retailing was changing fundamentally with online shopping, and did not change their local plans quickly enough to respond to that, which is a big issue. Secondly, the Committee strongly made the point that the response to such rapid changes has to be properly planned for by making changes to local plans. If, on a pepper-potted basis, we allow a change of use from shops and banks to residential, we might well end up with less ability to reconfigure town centres or to change areas wholesale from retail to other uses. That was one of our big concerns. There should be a plan-led approach to changes in retailing, not pepper-potting by permitted development.

Brandon Lewis: I want to add to what all Members have quite rightly said in congratulating
	the Select Committee and its Chairman on putting together a solid and sound report. They have my and the Government’s thanks for the efforts that they have clearly put into taking evidence and working on the report.
	I particularly note the importance given to neighbourhood plans, which has been mentioned. I agree that they are hugely important, which is why we are speeding up the process and putting another £22 million into them. It is good that, as has been outlined, the general view is that the NPPF is working. It has now delivered 240,000 new planning permissions in the past year.
	I assure the Committee that the Government and the Planning Inspectorate will look at the report’s 29 recommendations as part of our desire to improve the planning system—we can speed it up, while ensuring that we further enforce localism and local decision making, which is the key to positive development in future—but does the hon. Gentleman agree that local plans are hugely important, and that local authorities should be getting on with delivering local plans as well as neighbourhood plans to make sure that they have real local power over planning? Like me, he will be interested to see how local government reacts to and takes on board the eight recommendations specifically directed at local government. I again thank him for the report.

Clive Betts: Last time the Government agreed to 30 of our recommendations. It will be difficult to match that this time as we have given them only 29 recommendations, but I am sure that they will be grateful to receive one less.
	It is absolutely right that the Government should take away the report and consider it. We are saying that the NPPF has been a success in general, but we hope that the Government will recognise that there are some problems, particularly about issues—the development of local plans, the five-year supply of housing land and the relationship between neighbourhood and local plans—that need to be addressed to improve the system that they set up. I hope that the Government will respond positively, and we look forward to discussing their response to our recommendations when it is made.

BILL PRESENTED

Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	The Deputy Prime Minister, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Nicky Morgan, Mr Oliver Letwin, Greg Clark, Mr Sam Gyimah, Jo Swinson and Tom Brake, presented a Bill to make time-limited provision for vacancies among the Lords Spiritual to be filled by bishops who are women.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 5 January 2015, and to be printed (Bill 143) with explanatory notes (Bill 143-EN).

Thomas Docherty: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning, the Leader of the House said that the list of Government special advisers would be published today. It has been placed on the gov.uk website, but no copy
	has been made available to Members at the Vote Office. Do you have any suggestions about how I could encourage the Deputy Leader of the House to ensure that Members of the House are given the courtesy of being able to pick up a copy at the Vote Office?

Eleanor Laing: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman’s point of order merely because, unlike me and some other Members of the House, he is computer literate. I am surprised that he prefers to have such a matter printed on expensive and tree-wasting paper, rather than in electronic form. However, if any Member asks the Vote Office for a paper copy of a matter published on the Government website, the Vote Office ought to be able to provide one. I am quite sure that the Deputy Leader of the House has heard what the hon. Gentleman and I have said, and I would be very surprised if the Vote Office does not, in the very near future, take the hint and produce some paper copies of the matter that the hon. Gentleman so rightly draws to the attention of the House.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Christmas Adjournment

David Amess: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
	I move the motion on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, and I want to raise several points before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess.
	The place in which we work has changed and continues to change. I pay tribute to all the staff who work here. However, I have a number of worries, including that if we leave this place for five years, when it is refurbished, we may never return. I am very concerned about our sitting hours, which have had a deep impact on the catering facilities. Many of the facilities used to be very busy, but half of them are now empty. I am very concerned about the prices of refreshments generally. The refreshments are excellent, but the prices have put off charities from having events here.
	I praise the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013, which was introduced last year by one of my colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway). However, a couple of constituents came to see me to say that it is very expensive to get the licence, and that they do not believe the legislation is fully funded. All sorts of people are just paying lip service to it, so I urge the Government to ensure that extra support is given to local authorities and the police to monitor scrap metal sites and mobile dealers.
	I had the privilege to pilot the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 through the House, but the issue of fuel poverty still has to be addressed. I am delighted that the Government are rolling back green levies, and increasing the winter fuel payments and the warm home discount. However, some families are still suffering from fuel poverty. I encourage all constituents to consider switching to an energy provider or to a tariff that is cheaper and suits them best. A list of accredited switching sites can be found on the Ofgem website.
	I am delighted to report that Southend high school for girls and Southend high school for boys have been chosen to represent England at the world school athletics championships in China next year. I hope that everybody rallies behind them so that they do very well.
	I have mentioned to the House before that Councillor David Stanley leads the wonderful Music Man project, which enriches the lives of people with learning difficulties. I am delighted to tell the House that it will be performing at the London Palladium on 21 June 2015. I am hoping that my good friend, Sir Bruce Forsyth, will compere the programme. Tickets will be available next month.
	The House will know that Southend is the alternative city of culture 2017. I am delighted to announce that at the end of January 2015, c2c will be naming one of its trains in recognition of that, and that there will be a talent show in the Arlington Rooms in February next year.
	Earlier this year, I had the honour of hosting a number of Koreans at the Leigh Elim church. That is particularly pertinent given the story in the news today. Those wonderful people from Korea are praying for this House. I hope that Members take comfort from the fact that those people are working on our behalf in a far-off land.
	I want to comment on a number of all-party parliamentary groups that I chair. As we all know, some all-party groups are absolutely farcical and do not meet much. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for the Philippines. People from the Philippines do marvellous work. Its care workers are second to none. I am sure that I have the House’s support when I say that, thankfully, the number of casualties of the terrible flooding that the Philippines has experienced as a result of Hagupit, which made its first landfall on 6 December with a force equivalent to a category 3 storm, has been relatively small. I know that the Philippines would like to thank the British Government for their generosity in the wake of the typhoon. The Department for International Development has activated its humanitarian rapid response facility and agreed to a £2 million fund to help the humanitarian relief that is being provided by GOAL, Christian Aid and Oxfam, which are all established in the Philippines.
	I am very concerned about the situation in Bahrain. I continue to receive reports from individuals of ongoing torture, arbitrary detention and extra-judicial killings. The recent sentencing of the activist, Zainab al-Khawaja, is of particular concern. The Foreign Affairs Committee this year claimed that it had found no evidence of progress in Bahrain and I have asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to list it as a country of concern.
	I am the joint chairman of the British parliamentary committee for Iran freedom. I urge the Government to refer the regime’s human rights dossier to the United Nations Security Council for punitive measures and the prosecution of the Iranian regime’s leaders. The Government should realise that something needs to be done, particularly in respect of Camp Ashraf.
	I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group. I praise the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who is responsible for fire, resilience and emergencies, for supporting the work of the APPG. A number of concerns about the built environment and schools remain unresolved. The group wants to work more closely with the appropriate Departments.
	I was pleased that when we voted against the prayer on Monday, we received strong assurances from my hon. Friend on firefighters’ pensions. I visited one of my local fire stations last week and was made aware of all the concerns that were raised in the debate. I was delighted to hear her confirm that if someone fails a fitness test through no fault of their own and does not qualify for ill-health retirement, they will be redeployed or receive an unreduced pension.
	I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on maternity. Having fathered five children, I think that I have a few qualifications for that. I was delighted that we organised an event, in collaboration with the National Childbirth Trust, to honour a number of maternity groups throughout the country that are providing an excellent service for parents and their babies in the first 1,000 days.
	How many times have we heard that mental health is the Cinderella service? Of course, all political parties say that they will do something about that. I was very concerned to find out, when I met a group who are proposing a mental health manifesto, that although
	people with mental health problems account for 23% of the disease burden, they receive only 13% of NHS expenditure. Something needs to be done about that.
	Thinking of the season of good will and Christmas, I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary hepatology group. I urge hon. Members to read the group’s report on hepatitis C, which highlights the catastrophic consequences of failing to address the alarming rise in liver disease in the United Kingdom, which is caused by preventable viral hepatitis, alcohol misuse and obesity.
	I know that a number of colleagues have been lobbied recently by Parkinson’s UK. I agree with its campaign that calls for Duodopa to be commissioned routinely, based on national eligibility criteria. I would like to see more transparency from the clinical priorities advisory group in relation to that treatment.
	I was lobbied recently by the Institute of Customer Service. We all want the highest quality of service possible. It has concluded that the major enablers of excellent customer service in the public sector include a focus on customer insight, the co-creation of services with customers, simpler processes and employee engagement.
	I will end—[Hon. Members: “No!”] Well, I could go on a little longer, but there are 18 other speakers. I will end with an issue that I have mentioned on a number of occasions, which concerns Southend hospital, the South Essex Partnership Trust and Monitor. Because of what happened between 1997 and 2010, I believe that this place has increasingly lost a lot of power. I want to take this opportunity to praise all the doctors, nurses and ancillary staff who work at Southend hospital and for SEPT. However, I am appalled by the management standards.
	The chief executive of Southend hospital left, but she seems to have moved on seamlessly to another job, even though she took a £25,000 pay increase before she left. We have also been left with an £8.5 million debt. That is quite wrong. I want to know where the governance from the chairman has been. I want the chairman of Southend hospital to be replaced and I want a new management structure to be introduced.
	Monitor came to see me in October, and it has taken longer than two months to get back to me. A meeting was supposed to take place in my office this morning, but it seems not to have happened. I am not best pleased about that. I want to know who exactly is running the hospital on an interim basis, how much they are being paid and what their expertise is.
	I say again to the House, SEPT is a huge organisation. It is top-heavy with management. I am not going to leave this matter alone until the current management are replaced and until what went on under the last management, by which I mean the previous chief executive, is addressed. What is happening at those two services simply is not good enough.
	I extend my thanks to c2c, Arriva, the Genting Club, Waitrose, Morrisons, Tesco and all the other good organisations that have helped our community in the past year. I hope that that will encourage others to follow suit.
	I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker, the other two Deputy Speakers, all colleagues and all staff of the House of Commons a very happy Christmas, good health, peace, prosperity and a wonderful new year.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. It is obvious that a great many people wish to speak in this final debate. We do not have unlimited time, as we have had in the past. I am reluctant to introduce a time limit and thought that we might try to rely on the good will of Members to their fellow Members. I ask that Members restrict their remarks to around seven minutes. If everybody takes around seven or eight minutes, everyone who wishes to speak will have the opportunity to do so. Let us see how it works.

Gareth Thomas: I will do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Transport for London is London’s biggest and arguably least accountable quango. Bossed by the Mayor, in practice it is answerable to no one in London apart from him. Londoners have virtually no say in what it does. Fares go up with Londoners having no chance to stop them, never mind reduce them, while vanity projects such as a plan for an estuary airport, on which a royal ransom has been spent, and a cable car that carries few passengers, are funded and no one can stop them. That needs to change.
	Londoners need to be given more control over TfL, in the same way that patients were given the right to become members of their local hospital so that they have to be listened to and consulted on the trust’s strategy and non-executive director appointments. Surely it is time that Londoners were allowed some power to shape what TfL does, affect the decisions it makes and have a voice when its spending and fares plans are put together.
	London’s fares have gone up by some 60% in the past six years, with outer-London residents, including those in my constituency, being hit very hard. TfL’s most senior staff member recently said that he fears riots if the cost of London travel keeps rising. There has been little discussion with Londoners about the decision to shut virtually every ticket office despite the current Mayor’s pledge to keep them open, and there has been even less public debate about how TfL’s property might be used to address London’s housing crisis.
	There is the fiction of mayoral and London assembly accountability: every four years, if people do not like what the Mayor has done with public transport in London, they can vote for change, and there are regular London assembly transport question times, when the likes of Val Shawcross, Navin Shah and other assembly members do a great job within huge constraints, but there is no real input from ordinary Londoners. The first that anyone on the 8 am train from Harrow on the Hill or East Croydon hears of the next year’s fare increases is when they read about it in the Evening Standard, and only once the Mayor’s spin doctors have carefully packaged the announcement so that the worst rises are not discovered for a couple of days.
	If Londoners are to be given the chance to have a say on the big decisions that are needed on the future of London’s transport, they must surely be part of TfL’s decision making. They should be able to challenge the Mayor’s proposals on significant issues such as above-inflation fare rises, big projects or significant shifts such as privatising services or the use of TfL land.
	How could Londoners be given a greater say? The simplest way would be to create a right for all those paying council tax in London to join TfL if they want to do so. Membership of TfL would entitle London’s residents to attend annual meetings and to listen to, question and approve TfL bosses’ plans. Such a system already exists in foundation hospitals, and to a lesser extent in Welsh Water. The Mayor would still have the right of initiative, but crucially he would have to face a far more vigorous system of public scrutiny and approval. I gently suggest to the House that TfL needs to be reformed and that a more engaged and democratic TfL needs to emerge.
	Secondly, I wish to mention the huge cuts in funding that my local authority faces—some £25 million this year. That will put facilities such as Harrow arts centre and Harrow museum at risk, although they appear to have been saved at least for this year. Other cuts that the council envisages include those to North Harrow library and Rayners Lane library, both of which are popular facilities. North Harrow library in particular is a crucial community facility in an area that has lost a number of other services and commercial firms of late. Harrow faces some £50 million of further cuts in future years, so there will be difficult choices. I nevertheless hope that there might be a way to save North Harrow library in particular.
	Thirdly, I want to raise the example of Desjardins, the biggest financial services player in Quebec, in Canada. It is basically a credit union, but an unusual one. It is essentially a federation of 480 individual credit unions, which co-operate to present a unified back-office service and a unified front-facing offer. The individual credit unions share back-office services, cross-guarantee each other’s financial decisions and share the same brand name, making marketing of their services far easier.
	Desjardins is owned by its members and backed by the Church in Quebec, and its branches have become almost as prolific in Quebec as churches. It offers the full range of individual and business financial services, helping individuals to manage their future and helping small businesses to grow into larger ones. It makes a profit, which is shared by members across the credit unions.
	In the UK, the challenge remains how to take credit unions to scale. Part of the Desjardins model is being considered in the UK under the credit union modernisation project that the Department for Work and Pensions has funded. What has not yet been created is a similar front-facing offer—a common brand with an extensive common marketing offer and agreement on common products. Co-operatives are often fiercely independent, but I wonder whether it is time for an attempt to be made to bring credit unions together, at least on a regional basis, to fund for a number of years the common front-facing offer that is needed. Clearly, flexibility would be needed so that individual credit unions did not lose their identity or power. Why could not the Mayor of London, perhaps working with the Church of England, consider such an operation to help London’s credit unions grow in membership and number?
	The last point that I want to raise is about London Welsh rugby club. I have recently written to Alex Chisholm, the chief executive of the Competition and Markets Authority, about the fact that London Welsh, newly promoted to the premiership this year, get just £1.5 million in subsidy whereas other premiership rugby clubs get
	more than £4 million. Inevitably, the premiership is a rigged market as a result, always making it harder for newly promoted clubs to compete with more established clubs on an equal basis.
	Talks are in progress between London Welsh and Premiership Rugby, but I hope that Mr Chisholm from the CMA might be willing to use his good offices, following the letter that I have written to him, to which I hope the shadow Deputy Leader of the House might encourage a quick response, to encourage Premiership Rugby to see sense and sort out the huge imbalance in funding.

John Stanley: For all of us, it is a matter of fortuity as to whether the experience and expertise that we acquire in different ways before we enter the House can be utilised when we come here. I had the good fortune, before I entered the House, to be a member of the financial evaluation team at Rio Tinto-Zinc. Our responsibilities were to evaluate for the board of RTZ some of the most complex and largest capital projects worldwide in the mining and hydroelectric sector. The head of our team was the internationally renowned Mr Allen Sykes, and the book that he co-authored with the late Professor Tony Merrett, “The Finance and Analysis of Capital Projects”, was required business school reading.
	That background has been of considerable help to me both as a Minister and on the Back Benches, but perhaps never more so than now. My constituency extends to the western extremity of Kent, and every single aircraft landing at Gatwick airport from the east flies over my constituency, where noise levels for many of my constituents are already intolerable both by day and by night. The House will not be surprised to know that when the Airports Commission produced its latest and final consultation documents on the three additional runway options for the south-east, I went straight to Gatwick Airport Ltd’s financial evaluation of its second runway proposal. To say that I was acutely disappointed by what I found would be a major understatement. In fact, I was profoundly shocked at the level of concealment.
	The key elements in any financial evaluation are the crucial lines of financial numbers and the assumptions behind those numbers. Let us consider the key document published by Gatwick Airport Ltd and the appendix entitled “Financial Model”. In paragraph 3.4 on financing, for example, we would expect lines of figures, but instead we have lines of scissors—every single figure has been redacted. When we look at similar paragraphs, the balance sheet or the cash-flow statement, similarly, it is all scissors. In the crucial paragraph on tax—tax payable is a critical element of a financial evaluation—again we find acute disappointment.
	The owners of Gatwick airport are an international company, and all the major shareholders are foreign. They are from the US, Abu Dhabi, Australia and Korea. One key policy on which there is complete all-party agreement across the House is that international companies that operate out of the UK should pay their full and fair share of UK taxation. That was stated to me unequivocally by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who said in a recent letter:
	“The UK is at the forefront of multilateral action through the G20 and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
	Development (OECD) to reform the international tax standards to prevent profit shifting by multinationals. It is essential that these issues are looked at in a comprehensive and co-ordinated manner to come up with effective solutions.”
	What do we find in the tax paragraph on Gatwick Airport Ltd’s financial evaluation? There is not a single figure for tax payable by the company during the lifetime of the project. There is an assumption about corporation tax, but not one single figure for actual tax paid.
	Having seen that lack of information, when I and some of my colleagues who have constituencies in the vicinity of Gatwick airport met its chief executive, Mr Stewart Wingate, I asked him why he had redacted all that information. His answer was that it was commercially confidential, but I do not accept that that argument has validity. It would be valid if Gatwick Airport Ltd were competing for a franchise over the airport, but it is not. Gatwick Airport Ltd is the owner of the airport, which it bought from the British Airports Authority for £1.5 billion in 2009. In those circumstances, I do not believe that the issue of commercial confidentiality reasonably arises; much more fundamental is that there should be openness and transparency at what is a critical time moment for those living in the vicinity of Gatwick and indeed Heathrow.
	It is time-critical because this is the last-chance saloon and the last opportunity for members of the public and their elected representatives to give their views to the Airports Commission about the three available options—after the general election the commission will make its choice. This is a critical moment, and I consider that Gatwick Airport Ltd has failed—and failed scandalously —to be open and transparent about the financial evaluation of its project.
	Gatwick Airport Ltd has projected an increase in airline passengers from the current 30 million to almost 90 million by 2050—an extra 60 million travellers. It is self-evident that that will require substantial surface access improvements to Gatwick airport, and particularly rail access. What has Gatwick Airport Ltd said about meeting that need? There has been a deafening silence. Happily, by contrast the Airports Commission has not been silent, and paragraph 3.36 of its paper, “Gatwick Airport Second Runway: Business Case and Sustainability Assessment”, contains a significant one-sentence statement:
	“It is likely that Government will need to fund some or all of the surface access requirements”.
	In my view, Gatwick Airport Ltd is simply seeking a blank cheque from UK taxpayers, signed on their behalf to provide the surface access infrastructure that will be needed.
	In conclusion, on the grounds that Gatwick Airport Ltd has totally failed to be transparent about its financial evaluation, and has concealed the public expenditure implications of the infrastructure needed for a second runway, its proposal should be rejected by the Airports Commission.

Valerie Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). This debate gives us a chance to touch on various issues, and I wish to mention three: local government, the NHS, and something I hope we can all support on a cross-party basis because it appeals to our humanity.
	On local government, there is much discussion about the private and public sectors, and in my view the public sector comes off worse. Let us consider the cuts in welfare and the amount of money given to bankers under quantitative easing. What is that quantitative easing other than welfare for bankers? There were no questions asked, no Atos interview requiring them to walk 60 metres to qualify; the money was just handed over and they kept it without even lending it. In contrast, most local authorities that provide vital services are having their budgets slashed. It is extraordinary that the Government are pushing ahead with budget cuts to local government of more than a third.
	The National Audit Office said that single-tier authorities feared for core services, including education and social care, and that the Government have no way of monitoring the financial sustainability of councils. That matters because my council—Walsall metropolitan borough council —is a single-tier council. We have an outstanding Sure Start centre in Palfrey that has an innovative fathers club. It has a role to play in helping new parents and is a focus for them, but all that is under threat. Some families in Walsall cannot even afford a computer or the internet, so children go to libraries after school. How will we raise standards and aspirations if we deny people, especially children, access to knowledge? Those vital services can affect the long-term needs of society, and the budget cuts are short-term thinking that in the end will undermine society.
	Let me turn to the NHS. In the Health Committee I was surprised by an extraordinary admission from the Health Secretary, who told me that NHS staff could not receive their 1% pay rise because it was in patients’ interests not to give it to them. I cannot follow the logic of that. People were entitled to that pay rise, which was agreed and would have raised morale. Productivity drops if people do not feel valued, and none of the crisis in the NHS was made by the people who work in it.
	Earlier this year the Health Service Journal reported that two thirds of commissioners have experienced increased commissioning costs, and £60 million has been spent on tendering exercises. That is taking money out of the NHS. I have to keep repeating this, because the reorganisation cost £3 billion. An underspend of £1.4 billion was sent back to the Treasury in 2011-12. In 2012-13, £2.2 billion of underspend was sent back. That has all been handed back without giving staff a pay rise, even though there is a crisis in A and E.
	We need more doctors, yet we know that for every 350 medical student places there are at least another 1,000 applicants who have met the criteria. Should the Secretary of State not discuss with universities how to fast-track new doctors? The Secretary of State cannot rely on the one doctor, Doctor Who, to save the NHS—he can save lots of other things, but not the NHS.
	The most important thing is accountability. The Secretary of State and the chief executive of NHS England both appeared before the Committee. No one quite knows who is in charge and no one has a grip on the NHS. Like Statler and Waldorf, the two characters from the Muppets who sit in the side box, they heckle everyone saying, “Work harder or you won’t get a pay rise.” Of course, staff work harder but do not get a pay rise. They
	run down the services, so people have to look to outside providers. That is not the way to run a national health service.
	Finally, I became involved with John’s Campaign when I met Julia Jones and Francis Wheen. Julia told me about her elderly mother and how she worries about her as her carer. She talked about her friend Nicci Gerrard, whose father had recently died. Many Members will have seen the article in The Observer about Nicci’s dad. Dr John Gerrard had dementia. He was admitted to hospital, and Nicci said he was cared for by the doctors and nurses. Nicci and her family took an interest in John: they talked to him, read to him and played chess with him. However, in the hospital setting Nicci was not allowed to stay with John. All Nicci asked for and wanted was to continue doing those things with John, so that he could carry out his usual activities. Hospital is unnerving without dementia, but imagine if one cannot remember things—one would definitely feel more vulnerable. Nicci knew that John was deteriorating. The Library provided information on an example of very helpful good practice in a Bristol hospital. University Hospitals Bristol allow carers to continue their care in hospital. Ward staff have an initial daily conversation with carers, so they are clear what their role is in hospital. Carers are allowed to be with patients outside visiting hours, including through the night.
	The Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who has responsibility for care and support, wants all hospitals to be dementia friendly. He wrote a letter, on 14 March 2013, to all acute hospital trusts, but this aspect was not mentioned. Parents are encouraged to stay with their children overnight to make the experience less formidable. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to ask the Minister to meet me and the founders of John’s Campaign, Nicci Gerrard, Julia Jones and Francis Wheen, to discuss taking this issue forward. The early-day motion I tabled has received cross-party support from 41 Members, as of today. If there ever was a new year resolution that could come true, the Deputy Leader has it in his power to grant it. It would help those who support their loved ones in difficult times, and do so in John’s memory.
	It remains for me to say that I sat on the House of Commons Governance Committee and I have seen how brilliant this institution and the people who work in it, from top to bottom, are. I want to thank all of them for their hard work, and wish them a happy Christmas and all the best in 2015.

Neil Parish: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) for securing the debate. He is always the expert in delivering so many constituency cases and I congratulate him on that. I want to cover a number of constituency cases—perhaps not as expertly as my hon. Friend, but I will do my very best.
	First, I very much welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport on the £2 billion to deal with the bottleneck on the A30/A303, which goes through my constituency.
	Broadband in rural areas is extremely necessary. I have worked with all Members for Devon and Somerset from both sides of the House to secure funding for rural
	broadband. Devon and Somerset county councils have put money in, along with Broadband Delivery UK, to deliver rural broadband across the two counties. The very nature of the contract let to BDUK states clearly that broadband should get to the hardest-hit areas. Of course, what happens when the contract starts is that BDUK picks the easiest cherries on the tree and gets to the areas that are not quite so hard to hit. However, there are delays and delays in bringing rural broadband to areas around the Blackdowns, such as Upottery, Smeatharpe and over on the other side towards Seaton and Rousdon. We even had the chief executive of BDUK, in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, saying that it could be 2020 before some of those villages are reached. BDUK has come out with wonderful statistics stating that there is 95% broadband coverage across the country. The only problem is that nearly 95% of parts of my constituency do not have broadband. I suggested to the BDUK chief executive that it would not be wise for him to make that statement in some of my rural villages, because 95% of the people there do not have broadband.
	BDUK has begun, very late in the day, to look at alternatives to the large junction boxes or cabinets with fibre-optic cables. There are ways to introduce smaller cabinets on telegraph poles and the like. It is now beginning to pilot those schemes, but it is time for it to up its game and get broadband out to those hard-hit rural areas. I am looking forward. I welcome the support, with Government, council and public money, but it is time that broadband was delivered. I would love the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) to deal with this, because pressure needs to be put on BDUK on delivery.
	In my constituency, there is a group of volunteers called the Devon Freewheelers who deliver blood and body parts for transplant to hospitals. They have police-type bikes, are fully trained and deliver across the county of Devon, into Cornwall and beyond. The service they provide is run entirely through charity. No help has been given to it by the NHS or the local NHS trust, even though it now has a contract with the NHS in Devon for deliveries. It is time that we looked across our Departments in Government to see if we can find ways to support these great people, who have put in a huge amount of effort. One can imagine the tremendous amount of money it would cost if the NHS in Devon, Cornwall and beyond had to pay for the service.
	My constituent John Panvert of Steart Farm in Stoodleigh, Tiverton, bought a farm with a commercial stables with a large gallop area, many stables and an indoor horse-walking area. When he bought the property, business rates were being paid on it. He did not challenge immediately the fact that he carried on paying business rates, even though he now uses the stables domestically, so he now has a huge amount of business rates to pay. I have been to the property twice and seen that three stables are used for his wife’s horses, but for no other purpose. Even though we have challenged the valuation office about that, it is about to hire a barrister and take him to court to get him to pay the business rates. I think that is an abuse of power by those in authority.
	My last point is about the huge problems facing dairy farmers in my constituency and across the country. The price of milk is falling to 24p and below, but the cost of
	production is at least 30p. Farmers need support. I urge the Government, when procuring milk and other dairy products, to look for British product. I would also like the Government to look at how we promote milk. I am a great believer—I declare an interest as a former dairy farmer—in milk being a wholesome product that is very good for us. Over the years it has been downgraded, with people always talking about the fat it contains, but not the protein and all the other good constituents. We should go out and promote milk, using the resources of Dairy UK and others. The Government must stand up for a great farming industry that is not only looking after and feeding people, but delivering the great countryside that we all love to visit.
	Finally, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all in the House for looking after us so well and wish everyone a thoroughly happy Christmas.

Lyn Brown: I am absolutely delighted to have this opportunity to contribute once again to a Christmas pre-recess Adjournment debate. I want to raise two health issues: the hysteroscopy procedure and pancreatic cancer. I know that some Members were present when I talked about hysteroscopy last year, but I must warn the others that it is not for the squeamish, so I will perfectly understand if anyone wants to leave the Chamber.
	The hysteroscopy procedure was first brought to my attention by my constituent Debbie, who lives in Plaistow. She is a really lovely women and a great campaigner. She was diagnosed with womb and uterine cancer and contacted me not about the pain of the cancer, but the pain she went through during the process of diagnosis. Debbie underwent a hysteroscopy, which I remind Members is a procedure for looking inside a patient’s uterus. It is used to investigate symptoms such as pelvic pain, abnormal bleeding and infertility. Biopsies are often taken during the procedure and tissue is removed. The procedure is uncomfortable and can be incredibly painful.
	Debbie has since campaigned tirelessly to prevent other women being subjected to such a painful procedure. I pay tribute to the work that she and others in the hysteroscopy campaign have done. Since raising Debbie’s story in the House last Christmas, I have been contacted by a number of women across the country who heard about the debate and wanted to share their stories with me. The cases they described have all happened since last year’s debate.
	One such woman is Mrs Hughes. She had a thickening of her womb and was told that she might have cancer, so she had a pipelle biopsy, which in itself was very painful and distressing. She was then told that she would need a hysteroscopy and that she would be given an anaesthetic. Mrs Hughes, who has heart problems, phoned the hospital to find out what type of anaesthetic she would be given. She was told that it would be a nerve block anaesthetic. To be clear, Mrs Hughes received information from a doctor, a nurse and a leaflet at the local hospital, all telling her that the procedure would be conducted under anaesthetic.
	On the day of the procedure, however, her doctor—let us call him Dr C—told her, “Well, we only give anaesthetics to people who can’t cope with facing it. It stings, but you’ll be all right. I’ll be gentle. I’ll be in and out in
	30 seconds.” But the doctor could not find the cervix. After some time, and a considerable amount of intense and painful probing inside her, water was pumped into her womb and a camera was inserted. The pain increased significantly and Mrs Hughes was calling out loudly in distress. She felt herself passing out because of the pain. The doctor then said, “I can’t reach it.” The procedure was terminated without a biopsy or a diagnosis.
	After the procedure, Mrs Hughes went home. She said:
	“I had excruciatingly painful cramps and bleeding. I was so very distressed and dazed... I started to shiver and then began to shake all over. I couldn’t stop the shaking. My nerves were shot. I was crying and couldn’t get the procedure out of my head... I kept having flashbacks. My heart was affected, thumping and missing beats. I felt truly traumatised. I couldn’t sleep—I kept waking up in an absolute panic.”
	She was in agony and was clearly experiencing post-traumatic stress. The doctor simply told her that she would have to come back and have the procedure done under general anaesthetic.
	This really cannot go on. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), kindly wrote to me after last year’s debate. She highlighted the guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, stating that she expected
	“all clinicians to adhere to guidance where available to ensure good practice and the best outcomes for patients.”
	The guidance includes the need for formal informed consent for out-patient hysteroscopy before the procedure. I am afraid that I do not consider that to be sufficient protection for women. A significant number of hospitals still do not use a written consent form for an out-patient hysteroscopy. It is a postcode lottery as to whether a patient is offered different options for pain control, or indeed even advised to take a pain killer before the procedure. Put simply, many women across our country are still having to go through this procedure, which is often agonising, without the right information or informed consent.
	I implore the Minister to take action to ensure that surgeons must always discuss with patients what will happen before, during and after a hysteroscopy, and that they must obtain formal informed consent for an out-patient hysteroscopy before the procedure. This matter must be tackled. I ask the Minister to use her good offices to make some progress.
	I would now like to turn to pancreatic cancer. The diagnosis of pancreatic cancer often comes too late for any effective treatment, meaning that for many the news is abrupt, shocking and, all too often, a death sentence. It is often called the silent cancer, because the early symptoms are hard to detect and it is only later, when more precise and exact symptoms appear, that patients and doctors consider the possibility of pancreatic cancer.
	One of my constituents, Norma Giles, wrote to me about the loss of her son Steven to pancreatic cancer in 2010. He was previously a fit and healthy man, happily married and a father, and his death has had a devastating impact on the family. He was just 42, and like many he was diagnosed too late for surgery. His wife, Clair Giles, wrote:
	“if I told you pancreatic cancer is a git, I would be lying, as there are no words strong enough to tell you what pancreatic cancer does to the patient and to their family. I have struggled losing my husband, my soul mate.”
	She wants me to help get the message out that early diagnosis and surviving pancreatic cancer go hand in hand, and she argues that the lack of funding for the fight against pancreatic cancer is directly responsible for the poor survival rate. Understandably, she wants that to change.
	Tragically, Steven was diagnosed only after numerous visits to their GP with a range of symptoms. He had lost 4 stone and had diabetes, but it was only when a locum saw him that he was referred to hospital. Tragically, it was too late. We need to do far more to save people like Steven. Survival rates have remained unchanged over the last 40 years, with 22 people dying every day from pancreatic cancer and only 10% of patients being diagnosed in time for lifesaving curative surgery. Surely we can do better. As Members know, behind each statistic are personal stories and individual and family tragedies.
	Pancreatic cancer has the worst survival rate of all cancers, yet it receives only 1% of research spend. Over the last four years, cancer spending has been cut by £800 million in real terms, and I am told that treatment standards are deteriorating and that the national cancer target has been missed in the last three quarters. Hon. Members will share my concern that this is simply not good enough, so I implore the Government to look at the issue afresh. I am sure I speak for all Members in extending our thoughts and prayers to those battling cancer and in expressing our admiration for and thanks to the NHS staff caring for them, especially over the Christmas period.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you, hon. Members and everybody who works on the parliamentary estate the happiest of Christmases and the very best of new years.

Fiona Bruce: We hear today that Sony has pulled the apparently joke film “The Interview” about North Korea. I decry inhibiting free speech, whatever the material, but life in North Korea is not a joke. It is not a joke that desperate women wade across the frozen Tumen river to escape to China, only to be caught by Chinese men, sold into sexual slavery and then, when used up, sent back by the authorities to face torture in North Korea and the forced abortion of their unborn children.
	It is not a joke for those hundreds of thousands who live in concentration camps reminiscent of the Nazi era, many for uttering a few words against the North Korean regime—or, worse, under the regime’s atrocious “guilt by association” rule, not for something they have done, but for something their relatives have done to offend the regime. Prisoners are told they are not humans but animals and indescribably tortured: steam-rolled to death; killed by having hot molten metal poured over them; frozen to death; starved to death; worked to death in factories; hung upside down to have water poured into their nostrils, like so much beef hanging from hooks in a slaughter house; deprived of clothing and sleep, then mercilessly pummelled with wooden bats; kept in cells with two holes in the door for them to stick their feet out to be horrendously tortured; and frequently forced to watch executions, including of their blood relatives. As my co-chair of the all-party group on North Korea, an increasingly active group, Lord Alton, said,
	“Christmas spent in a North Korean gulag will be just another day of grotesque suffering.”
	Life in North Korea is not a joke outside the concentration camps either. It is not a joke for the thousands of stunted, parentless children—the so-called wandering swallows—who eke out a living on the streets. The problem of malnutrition in North Korea is so bad that the minimum height for a member of their armed forces is just 4 feet 2 inches. It is not a joke for the disabled in North Korea either. Just when we thought that reports from North Korea could not get any worse, this week we heard at first hand from an escapee at a meeting of the all-party group in the UK Parliament about how disabled people, including children, were sent
	“for medical tests such as dissection of body parts, as well as tests of biological and chemical weapons. Dwarves are castrated. Babies with mental and physical handicaps are routinely snatched from hospitals and left to suffer indescribable things until they die. The disabled in North Korea are simply disappeared.”
	We were told that by a disabled escapee, Ji Seong-Ho, who, at 14, lost his left hand and leg after passing out from hunger while scavenging for coal on railway tracks and was run over by a train. He was told by North Korean Government officials:
	“disabled people like you hurt the dignity of North Korea and you should just die.”
	He told us, “That really hurt.”
	At Christmas time, let us remember that living in North Korea is not a joke for the many brave Christians who every day fear incarceration simply for owning a Bible. One lady has told the all-party group that if soldiers suspect that someone is a believer, they will ransack their home until they find what they are looking for. In her home, they did: they noticed a brick slightly out of position, and behind it they found her Bible, so she was taken to prison.
	I have mentioned just two of many escapees who have spoken to our group this year and who are now finding sanctuary in the UK and increasingly giving testimonies of their suffering to Members of Parliament. For the rest of my speech, however, I want to speak not to fellow Members, or even to our constituents, but to the people of North Korea. When I first spoke about North Korea in the House, I was amazed to receive a letter from supporters in South Korea saying, “You are being heard” so I know that when we speak here, many of you in North Korea hear what we say—and that is increasingly the case with modern means of communication, such as smuggled-in USB sticks.
	I want you, the people of North Korea, to know that your suffering is being heard. Do not think that no one cares. Do not think that no one is speaking out for you. In the UK Parliament, more and more people are speaking out and showing that they care. We have compassion for you in your suffering, and this Christmas remember that our compassion is as nothing compared with that of Christ. One day, this too will end. Kingdoms rise and fall. We are praying for you and for your freedom.
	In addition to praying and speaking out, more and more people are acting. This year, a 400-page UN report by Mr Justice Kirby catalogued the brutal atrocities you experience. The world now knows of them and cannot stay silent. Increasingly, people in the free world are calling for action on your behalf. Only last week in this Parliament, the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief issued a report that can be found at www.freedomdeclared.org which added to demands made last month at the UN by no fewer than
	111 countries that those responsible for human rights violations in North Korea be brought to justice by the International Criminal Court. We also called for all appropriate justice mechanisms to be considered to bring the North Korean Government to account for their terrible atrocities against their own people. Here in the UK Parliament, as MPs we continue to press for the BBC World Service to broadcast to you, the people of North Korea, in the Korean and English languages, and we MPs continue to press for an increased dialogue with China to stop its policy of forced repatriation and for humanitarian aid to the people of North Korea.
	So, at Christmas time our hearts go out to you, the North Korean people, from the UK. Know that we are with you; know that we are supporting and working with your relatives and friends who have escaped to this country and know that they have a voice; and know that we shall continue to speak out for you and to press for action on your behalf until the day comes, which it surely will, when your country is free again and your suffering is at an end.

Mark Reckless: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who I am sure speaks for the whole House in her moving and compelling contribution.
	The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) spoke about Transport for London, and the ridiculous plans of the Mayor of London and Transport for London which no one could do anything about. He gave two examples, one of which was a Thames estuary airport. I am pleased to say that we could do something about that, following a fantastic campaign, which the Airports Commission said generated more representations than any other. I was privileged to lead that campaign with people from the Hoo peninsula and elsewhere in my constituency, but also with people from across the country and beyond, so that on 2 September this year, the Thames estuary airport pie-in-the-sky proposal promoted by the Mayor of London was categorically ruled out.
	Unfortunately, two days later, Medway council’s own planning committee attacked the Hoo peninsula with its own threat—a very serious threat—to build approximately 5,000 houses at Lodge hill, a bird sanctuary in my constituency. Two days after we had had the dreadful threat of the Thames estuary airport ruled out, we had this other one to deal with. Five days later, Medway council had to refer the application to the Secretary of State to consider whether it should be called in.

John Randall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Reckless: No. [Interruption.] I said no.
	The criteria used for planning application call-ins used to be called the Caborn criteria. Three of those criteria appear to be met very clearly by this application to the extent that a call-in is required. The first relates to conflicting with national policies on important matters, notably the protection of sites of special scientific interest—and, indeed, the whole integrity of our system of environmental protection.
	The second relates to having significant effects beyond the immediate locality. It could even have an effect as far away as west Africa, where the nightingales that are the cause of this area becoming an SSSI spend the British winter. There could be an impact on Essex, because the planning committee of Medway council has, in its wisdom, accepted a proposal that the nightingales can be told to go to an alternative location somewhere in Essex. We do not have much in the way of detail, but this clearly suggests significant effects beyond the immediate locality. Perhaps most importantly, approving the proposal or failing to call it in and seeking to nod it through with a green light could have impacts on other SSSIs across the country.
	The third criterion is where the development would give rise to substantial cross-border or national controversy. Having been at the centre of such controversy during the recent Rochester and Strood by-election, I can vouch for that.
	On 25 September, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government recused himself from considering the application on the basis that he is a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Two days later, I recused myself from the Conservative party and was determined to fight a by-election partly on this issue. Since the Secretary of State recused himself, the matter has been considered by the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis). He wrote to me on 15 October, and I was glad to hear that no ministerial decision had been taken on whether the matter should be called in. He criticised what he described as my claim that such a decision had been taken.
	Of course, that was not my claim. It was a claim made by the deputy leader of Medway council, Councillor Alan Jarrett, in a meeting of Conservative councillors. His statement was that it had apparently been communicated to him by the Government that the proposal would be green-lighted and would not be called in. That led to another councillor present at the meeting, Councillor Peter Rodberg, leaving the Conservative group and joining me in UKIP. He says—and this is borne out by another councillor who has spoken to me, and who remains a Conservative—that at the end of the meeting, after the councillors had been told that the Government would green-light the proposal, Councillor Peter Hicks, who represents Strood Rural, said that they should keep quiet about it until after the election.
	It was a pleasure to learn from the Minister that he was dealing with the issue of the call-in properly. He clearly recognises that he is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and—at least in terms of the time that he has already devoted to the issue and the correspondence that he has issued—he appears to be performing his duties with diligence. His most recent letter was written on 8 December to Councillor Rodney Chambers, the leader of Medway council. I understand that since this Government have been in office no more than a dozen applications have been called in each year, whereas under the last Government about 30 a year were called in, but I am not aware of any precedent for such a letter.
	The Minister wrote asking for Medway council’s views, and in particular the views of the planning committee that had considered the application on 4 September, on
	a number of representations that had been received, including representations from the RSPB and Natural England. Unfortunately the Minister did not attach the representations that he said he had attached to the letter, and, as far as I know, they have not been published. The letter is peculiar, however. It is not clear whether Medway council’s views were being sought, or the views of the planning committee, or both, and it is not clear how any conflict between them should be resolved. The planning committee meeting was, of course, on the record, so the extent to which it has considered—or, one suspects, not considered—the matters that it should have considered should have been made clear either in its decision notice or in the record of that meeting. I therefore question the credibility and reliability of any ex post facto justifications that Medway council may now produce for its decision, and any statement in which it purports to have abided by the national planning policy framework.
	Given that letter, given that at least three of the criteria for call-in were clearly met, and given the statement by the deputy leader of the council that the proposal would be green-lighted in the light of communications that he at least believed were taking place within the Government or among those who he thought could speak for them in respect of there not being a call-in, I think it is clear that the safest and, indeed, the only appropriate option is for the Government to call in the application, appoint an inspector, and give proper consideration to what is, in my view, an incredibly damaging application. This application would result in the pulling together of several villages into a single conglomeration, and would cause a site of special scientific interest to be almost completely built over, which would undermine the whole system of environmental protection in this country. It should now be considered by an inspector and then by the Secretary of State, and, hopefully, turned down as a result.

Bob Russell: Two hundred years ago Britain and the United States of America were at war, and had been for more than two years. Christmas Eve is the 200th anniversary of the signing of a peace treaty to end the north American war of 1812-14. Since then our two great countries have been friends and close allies, which has served us well through good as well as difficult times. However, as far as I can ascertain, the anniversary of the treaty of Ghent is not being commemorated either in the United Kingdom or in the United States.
	Next year there will be huge commemorations to mark the 200th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, at which Napoleon was finally defeated, and every year we have Trafalgar day to mark the battle of Trafalgar in 1805. Two great battles that shaped European history are taught in our schools, so why has the north American war, which took place in the years between Trafalgar and Waterloo and which shaped British history and the history of north America, been airbrushed from the history that is taught to our children?
	Had the United States won the 1812-14 war, there would not be a proud Commonwealth country called Canada today. Fortunately, our Canadian cousins recognise the huge importance of what was delivered by the treaty of Ghent, but successive British Governments and the
	education establishment—by omission—stand accused of dereliction of duty in ignoring it in the school history curriculum. It would be an insult to the memory of those who fought for Britain—British soldiers and sailors and the loyalist population living in British north America —if the British Parliament did not recognise the 200th anniversary, so in their honour I am doing what I can today to put on the official record that this important moment in our nation’s history has been raised in the House of Commons.
	I can further report that on Monday evening this week, at my instigation, a commemorative dinner was held in the House of Lords hosted by Lord Clark of Windermere with two guest speakers from the US embassy, Brigadier General Dieter Bareihs, defence attaché of the US air force, and Elizabeth Dibble, deputy chief of mission. It was a modest event with just 20 people drawn from both Houses. We had toasts to Her Majesty the Queen and the President of the United States, and to UK-USA relations past, present and future. Thus the 200th anniversary was commemorated, with most admitting that they had not hitherto been aware of the war of 1812-14, and nor had I until last year when I stumbled across knowledge of it during a visit to Canada with the Colchester military wives choir, who sang at the Canadian international military tattoo, at which cameo scenes from battles of 1813 were staged between the main events.
	This prompted me to hold an Adjournment debate on 25 June this year entitled “History Curriculum: North American War, 1812-14”. I have also pursued at education questions why this war does not feature in the history curriculum. I will not repeat today what I have put on the record previously, but instead I will concentrate on the signing of the peace treaty in what is today Belgium on Christmas eve 200 years ago. As ever, I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for its assistance, specifically Mr Paul Lester and Mr John Prince.

Thomas Docherty: I intend to talk about this later, but is the hon. Gentleman aware of the excellent book by Andrew Lambert called “The Challenge”, which deals in particular with the naval element of the 1812-14 war, in which the Royal Navy sank the whole US navy?

Bob Russell: I am not aware of that book, but I am aware of the equally wonderful book by the TV journalist Peter Snow about when British forces burnt down the White House and other aspects of the war of 1812-14.
	Following the signing of the treaty of Ghent, it was ratified by the Government and signed by the King on 30 December—or perhaps by the Prince Regent; I have not been able to confirm which. The ratifications of the treaty were exchanged in Washington on 17 February 1815. Hansard, volume 30, columns 209-218, headed “Treaty of Peace with America”, records that the treaty, when fully ratified and exchanged, was presented to Parliament by Lord Castlereagh on 16 March 1815.
	It is fascinating to read the proceedings, and to observe that the treaty was printed in full, broken down into 11 separate articles, with a preamble commencing as follows:
	“His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, desirous of terminating the war which has unhappily subsisted
	between the two countries, and of restoring, upon principles of perfect reciprocity, peace, friendship, and good understanding between them, have for that purpose”—[ Official Report , 16 March 1815; Vol. 30, c. 209-10.]—
	and which continues with a list of the representatives of the two countries delegated to reach an agreement to end the war which had been declared by the USA on Britain in June 1812. Among the five Americans was John Quincy Adams; 11 years later, he become President of the United States.
	We are currently commemorating the 100th anniversary of the first world war which started in August 1914. Some 100 years before, in August 1814, British forces, among them the East Essex Regiment, burnt down the White House. That was the last time that mainland USA had been invaded by a foreign power. We quite rightly commemorate the battle of Trafalgar in 1805 and the battle of Waterloo in 1815. Now, with the 200th anniversary of the peace treaty which brought to an end the north American war of 1812-14 between the United States of America and the United Kingdom, I urge the Government to prevail on those responsible for the history curriculum in our schools to include this war, which occurred in the same period as those two battles, and on the education establishment to give an explanation as to why it currently ignores it.

Jeremy Corbyn: I enjoy the Christmas Adjournment debate because it gives us a chance to raise diverse subjects that are of concern to us. I want to raise two subjects that might look very different but in fact have a link from the national to the international. In questions to the Leader of the House today, and earlier this week in questions concerning Iraq, I asked why Britain had just announced that it was going to build a new military base in Bahrain. I have also just tabled an early-day motion on the subject. It will be the first new base to be built anywhere in the world by Britain for a very long time. It is not just an extension of the existing naval facilities; it is a new base. The details are slowly beginning to emerge, and it appears that Bahrain is buying a British flag to go on the base and is indeed paying for quite a lot of it.
	Following the announcement, the British ambassador to Bahrain spoke at a business meeting last week at which he assured the business men—I should imagine that they were indeed all men—that Britain was aware of the improving human rights situation and democratic processes in Bahrain, and that it was therefore an act of choice for Britain to build the new military base there. Yesterday, a press conference was held in the House of Lords. It was excellently chaired by Lord Avebury of the parliamentary human rights group. It was attended by a considerable number of people who had been exiled from Bahrain. Some were political exiles, others had relatives in prison there. A number of lawyers were also present, and they explained exactly what the prison conditions were like.
	The assertion that human rights in Bahrain are somehow improving is bizarre beyond belief. If anyone doubts that, I would refer them to an excellent article in The Guardian on 20 October by Maryam al-Khawaja, in which she describes how her family have been imprisoned in Bahrain and how she has tried to get them out. They are in prison because they had been protesting about
	the lack of democratic rights in Bahrain, the systematic discrimination against the opposition there and the interference in Bahraini affairs by Saudi Arabia at the invitation of the Bahraini Government.
	It is incumbent on our Government at the very least to come to the House and make a statement telling us why the base is being built, from where they are getting their information that human rights in Bahrain are improving when clearly they are not, and why they think that our approving of the regime—from the Formula 1 race to this—is somehow going to improve the human rights situation there.
	In a telling section of her article, Maryam said the thing that would have the greatest influence on improving human rights in Bahrain would be the influence of the British and United States Governments, if they chose to exercise it. They have chosen not to exercise it, however; they have chosen to do the exact opposite because that fits their geopolitical view of the world.
	We are, of course, also a major arms supplier to Bahrain. We have even sent anti-personnel equipment to Bahrain that has been used to suppress demonstrations and used against demonstrators. It does not do much for the image of the United Kingdom when people are being oppressed and beaten with equipment that has been supplied by this country, assisting the police in oppressing human rights and demonstrators.
	Behind all that lies the huge influence of Saudi Arabia, which went into Bahrain with military force in order to support the Government there. The human rights record of Saudi Arabia is beyond appalling—there are public executions and very few rights for women—yet it remains a massive arms export market for British products. That is why, when we discussed earlier the anti-corruption plan, I specifically raised the running sore of the way in which the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, suspended the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the corruption surrounding the al-Yamamah arms contract, which was worth £2 billion in sales to Saudi Arabia.
	We talk about corruption around the world, and about human rights around the world. It is true that we cannot change everything, and that we have limited powers, but we can send signals. The signal sent by opening a base in a country that systematically abuses human rights and by selling arms to a Government who we know abuse human rights is absolutely the wrong one. We could do something rather different and rather better. I hope that when we come back in the new year we will have the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s decision on the base and the associated issue of the arms trade. Of course, it is part of the strategy that our Government adopt internationally, but I would have thought that the experience of the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq—the cost in human life, both of the Iraqi and Afghan people, and of British and American soldiers, and the damage to our own civil liberties and standing in the world—would lead us to think a little more carefully about spending such sums on a military presence around the world. We could be using that money so much better.
	The second part of what I want to say relates to how Government money is spent. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) has just announced the local government spending settlement, and he kept
	saying, in answer to many questions, that the way forward for each local authority was to grow its business base to grow its income. That is fine, and I am sure every local authority would like to do that, but the reality is that more than half of all local government expenditure comes from central Government grant. That is not likely to change in a big hurry, unless there is a massive change in the whole taxation system in this country, and I do not see anybody introducing that in the near future. Local government is dependent on central Government grant every year. It comes in many forms—direct grant, special grants, special services and so on—but in essence local government is dependent on that.
	Under this Government there has been a huge cut in the local government grant, which has affected most local authorities, but it is not a universal cut. The great cities of Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, and all the London boroughs, have had massive, disproportionate cuts, almost directly related to the level of need and poverty that the people of those boroughs experience. By the end of the financial year 2015-16, Islington, my borough, will have had half of its money cut under this Government, yet it faces the same level of demand—nay, it faces an increased level of demand and need, because the borough has a bigger population. Some 40% of our children live in a degree of poverty. There are huge needs and there is a huge wish by the local authority to be able to meet those needs and the adult social care needs, but it will not have the wherewithal to do it. I appeal to the Government to carry out an audit on levels of poverty in this country and to start to think about how we allocate expenditure based on the crying needs of many people, particularly children growing up in inner-city areas.
	Like all of London, my area suffers a housing crisis. The local authority is doing its best to build council housing, either directly or in partnership with housing associations, and to ensure that it does not go down the road of the Government’s policy of charging 80% of market rent for social housing but remains with the original affordable formula of local authority rents. However, the council is not going to be able to solve the housing crisis very quickly, and the issue we face is in the private rented sector, which comprises about a third of my constituency housing.
	Despite everything the Government say, rent levels are increasing fast. The security of tenure is limited—it is usually six months but sometimes a year in an assured shorthold tenancy. There is little security at the end of those six months and no security if the person has had the temerity to complain to the environmental health service about the conditions they are in. The rent levels are so high that they are way beyond the level of the benefit cap, which, sadly, Parliament voted through, and that means that when it goes beyond the ability of families to pay the rent, they will be forced to move away from the borough. The families want to remain in the borough and their children want to remain in local schools, so many children are having horrendous long journeys every day in the hope that they will be able to get back into the borough and get a council house in the future. The situation is cruel, disruptive and damaging to the community. The lack of regulation in the private rented sector is enabling speculative private landlords to make vast amounts of money. This Parliament is unlikely to bring in any kind of regulation of the private rented sector; it will be a job for the next Parliament.
	The proportion of private rented homes is very high in my constituency and in a number of other areas in London, as it is in one or two big cities, but nationally it is going up very fast. By the end of the next Parliament, more than a quarter of the people in the UK will be living in the private rented sector. It is unbelievable that in the next Parliament there will not be regulation of the private rented sector to give longer, more secure tenancies, rights for tenants and, above all, control of rents, so that we bring an end to excessive rents and the evictions that follow.
	I wish everyone a very happy Christmas, but I also think of the misery of children being homeless, unsure of their future and living in very poor conditions. It is unnecessary in the fourth richest country in the world that this degree of insecurity and poverty exists. We can and should do something about it.

Simon Burns: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise an issue of great importance to my constituents: the rail service between Chelmsford and Liverpool Street.
	We have a problem with the railway because, by the historic nature of its original build, it is only one track up the line and one track down, and it is impossible to expand it to two tracks because of where the track was positioned in the first place. We are relived that, in the next five years, Network Rail will be investing £149 million in improving the whole of the Great Eastern main line. In his autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer embraced the Great Eastern taskforce recommendations, which will see £476 million invested in improvements to the rail network.
	However, in the short term, there is a problem. If one looks at the reliability figures over the past six months between April and the beginning of November, one sees that they have fluctuated each month, between 92.6% on a good day and as low as 87.5% on a bad day. Worryingly, Chelmsford station is, according to the Office of Rail Regulation, the second busiest station in the region. More than 8,500 people commute daily to London to work, so they are reliant on that service to get to and from work each day. Since late November, we have been seeing far too many disruptions to the line, which have caused severe problems for those who need to get to work or to travel to London or elsewhere along the network.
	Sadly, one reason, which is not unique to the line, is the increased number of suicides that are occurring on our railways. It is a tragedy not only for those who commit suicide and their family and friends, but for society at large. It is, as Members will recognise, a difficult issue to overcome, but more needs to be done.
	There are three top causes for the disruptions to our railways from 1 December to 15 December. First, 22% of the total delay is due to technical fleet delays, which basically means broken down rolling stock and engines. That has accounted for 23% of the rail cancellations. The second reason is what is known in the trade as possession overruns, which is a serious and totally unforgiveable issue. It is when Network Rail overruns on the engineering work it has been doing over the weekend. Of course, we all welcome the engineering work being done, because it shows investment in the
	track and overhead electrification cables to improve and enhance the service, but to my mind there is no excuse if, due to bad planning, it overruns into the rush hour on a Monday morning, causing catastrophic disruptions for commuters trying to get to work.
	The third reason is track faults and broken rails, which account for 11% of total delay minutes and 9% of the total calculations. Those three categories alone caused 45% of the disruptions to the service in the first two weeks of December.
	When we talk about broken-down trains, the company that gets most blame is Greater Anglia, which provides the service, but in most of the cases in this two-week period it was not Greater Anglia trains that were breaking down but freight trains, which then caused the back-ups and backlogs in the service. That is why I want far quicker action on electrification of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton line so that more freight trains can use that electrified service and will not have to come down through Chelmsford into London and around north-west London to go out again towards the midlands and north of England.
	I also want to see new trains for Greater Anglia routes or for whoever else gets the franchise to run the service in 2016. I am particularly pleased that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Transport have accepted that a commitment to new rolling stock and trains will be part of the franchise tender document published next year, before the award of a new franchise from 2016. We have now become one of the parts of the rail network with the oldest rolling stock. It is at least 30 years old and has all the problems that 30-year-old rolling stock suffers from, particularly with the reliability of the engines.
	I am also keen that more should be done by Network Rail to put measures in place to ensure that when it plans its timetable for badly needed engineering work—considerable engineering work has gone on on the line for the past 10 to 15 years, with an upgrade of the track from Liverpool Street through to Chelmsford and north up to Colchester and the replacement and modernisation of the electrification cables—it must do it in such a way that when Monday morning dawns it has completed the work planned for that weekend and the rail network can get back to running a reliable and proper service for hard-pressed passengers who have to get to work. I have spoken to Network Rail and appreciate that it understands the problem and the need to get its timetables and programmes right, but it cannot simply talk about it. It must ensure that that actually happens.
	Commuters, whether they are in Chelmsford or elsewhere, do not pay cheaply for the service they get. I accept that in the past when British Rail was a nationalised industry, successive Governments, Conservative or Labour, always had investment in the rail network as one of the first cuts at their disposal when getting into financial problems. It was a false economy at the time, and since privatisation successive Governments—to be fair, the previous Labour Government did this too—have played catch-up to provide the investment. In this control period, 2014 to 2019, £38.5 billion is being spent by Network Rail to upgrade our rail network, just as the previous Labour Government, in control period 4, invested billions of pounds. The only difference is that one of the main challenges for the rail network now involves greater electrification. In 13 years, the previous Government provided an extra
	10 miles of electrification whereas this Government will provide 856 extra miles. The hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench, who I do not think has ever been a transport spokesman, is shaking his head, but I assure him that those figures are right.

Thomas Docherty: Although I was not a transport spokesperson, I worked for Network Rail and I am a member of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association. I worked on a project to build a new electrified line that was 15 miles in length, so I am sorry that the former Transport Minister is not quite aware of all the facts.

Simon Burns: I am impressed by the hon. Gentleman’s qualifications, but I will tell him, and he can check the facts later—surprisingly, his own Front-Bench team have never questioned them—that under the Labour Government there were 10 extra miles of electrification in their 13 years. Under this coalition Government there are at present 856 extra miles—not replacing existing electrified line, but over and above, new electrification of our railways. Before Christmas if he has time or in the new year, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be able to check his facts and write back to me confirming the accuracy of my figures.
	I think we have consensus now. On that happy note, I wish all the staff who work so diligently and hard on our behalf throughout the year a very happy Christmas, and Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish you a very happy Christmas.

Lindsay Hoyle: Thank you.

John McDonnell: I want to raise the case of Shaker Aamer and make a plea for Government action to secure his release from Guantanamo Bay. Shaker is the last British resident of Guantanamo.
	The story of Shaker is simple. He was born in December 1968 in Medina in Saudi Arabia. He left home aged 17, lived in America for a year and travelled to many countries before making his home in the United Kingdom. In 1996, he was granted the legal right to remain in the UK and worked as a translator for a firm of solicitors. His application for British citizenship was in progress when Shaker, his wife and young family decided to travel to Afghanistan to work on charitable projects. Notably, he was supporting a girls school and digging wells. He arrived in June 2001 to join his friend Moazzam Begg and to share a house in Kabul.
	After 9/11, in October 2001, the US and the UK started bombing Afghanistan and Shaker sent his family on to safety. As he tried to follow them, he was betrayed by Afghani villagers to the Northern Alliance. He was tortured and then sold for a bounty of $5,000 to the US. He was taken to the “dark” prison in Kabul, where he suffered appalling torture and was transferred to Bagram and Kandahar for further abuse. Shaker states that he was subjected to cruel torture and coercive interrogation, and MI5 and MI6 agents were present. In February 2002 he was among the first detainees to be transported to Guantanamo, in the orange suits, the chains, the ear muffs, the shackles and the blindfolds. There he continued to suffer acts of cruelty, torture and deprivation.
	Shaker was among the prisoners who protested against the harsh conditions and he soon became a respected spokesperson for the other detainees. Following his role in a major hunger strike in June and July 2005, he organised a prisoners council. All the prisoners’ requests were denied, and to silence him Shaker was put into solitary confinement for five years. Articles 5 and 9 of the universal declaration of human rights state:
	“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”
	and
	“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”,
	yet Shaker’s lawyer in the US, Brent Mickum, stated:
	“Shaker is still being tortured down there. Shaker has been jailed as long as anyone, undergoing regular torture from beating to food and sleep deprivation. There isn’t a shred of evidence against him.”
	Shaker has now been held without charge for over a decade. President Obama promised to close Guantanamo by January 2010 and to restore the US to the rule of law. However, Guantanamo still remains open, with the remaining detainees losing hope of an end to their ordeal, in which all their human rights have been denied. Shaker Aamer was cleared for release by the Bush Administration in 2007. In January 2010, the Obama taskforce review reaffirmed his status. In August 2007, the UK Government recognised Shaker’s right to return as a long-term resident and requested his release to the UK. This request was strenuously repeated on subsequent occasions. In July 2010, the Prime Minister stated that the coalition Government would continue to request his release.
	Shaker’s family live in Battersea and they are British citizens. They were represented formerly by Martin Linton and now by the current Member of Parliament for Battersea, both of whom have worked assiduously to secure his release. All he is asking for is to return to his family to live with his four young children back home in London. It is beyond belief, frankly, that he is still detained in Guantanamo, having been cleared twice. It is extremely hard for his family and friends to bear. He has done no wrong but has been greatly wronged by the shameful action of the US Government, unfortunately with some collusion originally by the UK Government. He has suffered cruel and inhuman treatment, including many years incarcerated in solitary confinement in a cell of 6 feet by 8 feet. Shaker’s mental and physical health is a cause of great concern. Following recent visits from his lawyers, it was reported that he is “gradually dying in Guantanamo” from his many medical problems and from the years of abuse.
	I ask the Prime Minister to pick up the telephone again to Washington to ask that Shaker be released. He is innocent, he has been cleared twice, and he should be returned home.

Jeremy Corbyn: I was happy to be with my hon. Friend yesterday delivering a letter about this to Downing street. I am sure he agrees that if President Obama can, correctly, release the remaining members of the Miami five and show a rapprochement with Cuba, he could release somebody who is in prison in Cuba whom he has the power to release, and do it quickly.

John McDonnell: It is perfectly open to the President to do this now. There is a window of opportunity that may close in January as a result of the changes in Congress, so now is the time for him to act. A number of MPs from all political parties have signed a plea to urge the Prime Minister to pick up the phone to Washington to ensure that Shaker is returned home to his family by Christmas.
	I want to raise two other things. This Christmas will the last Christmas when my constituents and many others in the London borough of Hillingdon will have the opportunity to use the services of Randalls store in Uxbridge, because it is closing. It has served our community over generations and decades. I thank the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), his predecessors, his family and the staff for the service they have provided. I wish him and all the staff well in the future. The store will be greatly missed as a local community facility.
	This morning I visited pupils at Harlington community school, a local secondary school where a group of sixth formers had, of their own volition, collected parcel after parcel of food to be provided to Hillingdon food bank. I wish them a very happy Christmas. I take pride in what they have done and their generosity as young people working hard on behalf of the community. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all Members and staff a happy Christmas.

Lindsay Hoyle: There can be no more appropriate moment to call Sir John Randall.

John Randall: One of the regrets I will have when I leave this House will be not to work alongside—at least in parliamentary terms; I may be able to do so in an extra-parliamentary way—my comrade in arms, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
	This will be my last Christmas Adjournment debate. Like all good things, it must come to an end. Yesterday in the Division Lobby, I rather got the impression that the time had come to leave, because as I approached the desk to register my vote, I pulled out my Oyster card. I think that sums up the fact that I am getting ready to go.
	I remember these Adjournment debates with great pleasure. When the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was Deputy Leader of the House, he used to make very amusing wind-up speeches in which he gave all the speakers roles from various television sit-coms, such as “’Allo ’Allo!”, “Dad’s Army”, and perhaps appropriately, “Are You Being Served?” As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has said, I was usually portrayed as Young Mr Grace. I think the Prime Minister must have read some of those Hansardreports, because he used to refer to me as Young Mr Grace. I do not think that was necessarily a compliment, but I will take it as such.
	As the hon. Gentleman has said, unfortunately the family business is closing its doors. I want to thank the staff who have worked there over the years. When I go around canvassing or talking to constituents and they mention the store, it is usually not the quality of the products that they talk about—although they do mention
	the things they have bought—but the wonderful staff. The longest serving member of staff has been there 42 years and I assure the House that I will do whatever I can to help those who want to find another job. I will do my very best.
	Having witnessed the experiences of those looking for work elsewhere, I am shocked at how the retail world has changed. The sort of employment being offered now, including zero-hours contracts, makes it quite scary for people going into the retail business. All of us, as consumers, have to take some blame for that, because it is consumer pressure that leads to margins being cut and everybody looking at how they can do that, and I am afraid that employment is one of the affected areas. Although I can blame online services and lots of other things, we all have to take responsibility for that.
	On the issue of long-serving members of staff who have probably done more for my constituents than I have ever done, I want to mention my secretary, Mrs Delma Beebe, who has been with me since I entered the House in 1997. She started working in the House in 1963, in the Refreshment Department. In 1967 she took on a Member of Parliament and I am her latest, and probably her last, MP. She is the person with whom my constituents have most interaction. If it was not for her, I am not sure that I would be here today, because they may well have booted me out.
	One of my constituents, Mr Conrad Tokarczyk, has raised with me the issue of step-free access in underground stations, and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and I have been working on that, together with Deborah King. She is another constituent of mine who is always coming up with good and interesting ideas, although I do not always agree with them. For instance, she wants job sharing for MPs, but I do not understand how that would work with votes. Anyway, step-free access is very important and there are some innovative ideas about how businesses could provide sponsorship. Money could also be taken off a passenger’s Oyster card—to return to my favourite subject—on a voluntary basis and given to their particular station in order for it to improve its facilities. Transport for London should find out how much the necessary improvements will cost, because then we would know the sum we are working towards.
	One of the things I have been very pleased to have played a small part in during my time in the House is the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, because I did some work on marine issues. I was delighted to hear the recent announcement on fisheries. The anglers and I do not always agree—they have different policies from mine on cormorants and goosanders—but I have spoken to Members and an ex-Member, Martin Salter, and they are disappointed that there are not enough measures relating to the preservation of sea bass stocks. We should address that.
	I know that not only the House but somebody from Private Eye who likes to follow these debates and regards my speeches as among the most boring things that happen in this place would be disappointed if I did not mention birds in the remaining minutes of my speech. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) did not take my intervention earlier, because I was going to welcome him to the side of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I remember having a heated discussion with him in the Members’ Lobby some time ago. He had said during a
	Westminster Hall debate that houses were more important than birds, so I was going to congratulate him on his Damascene conversion in the past few months. Is it not refreshing to find UKIP actually speaking on behalf of west African migrants? We should all welcome that.
	I want to talk about a success story, which Members from both sides of the House can take pleasure in. The bittern—the bog bumper, as it is also known—has been increasing. It is a marvellous bird. People do not need to go to incredibly special places to see them. In the winter, not far away at the London Wetland centre in Barnes, people can, if they are lucky, see these elusive denizens of the marsh. In 1997, there were only 11 booming males. They are called that because of their display call, which can be heard for miles.

John McDonnell: How does it go?

John Randall: I do not think that Hansard had better try to do it.
	In 2014, there are now 140 boomers, or singing males, over 61 sites. The great thing is that that is all the result not only of a bittern project, but of making sure that the reed beds are in a good way. I am particularly pleased about the reed beds not only for the bitterns, but for other denizens of the reed beds that are doing really well. One bird that I perhaps feel a great affinity for, and which is also doing well, is the bearded tit. [Laughter.]
	On that note, as always at this time of year, we like to thank everybody who works in the House. Because I worked with them for a long time, I particularly want to refer to the people in the Government Whips Office. I have previously mentioned those at the very top of it—Mark Kelly, Roy Stone and Kate Wilson—but I also want to mention Claire Scott and the others in the administration unit.
	Finally, I must mention one person whom I have never referred to in Parliament before, but who has done as much for me as anybody else in this place—my wife Kate, and I will also mention our children Peter, David and Elizabeth. If it had not been for their support, I would have been even grumpier than I normally am.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I just say that Members should aim to speak for seven minutes? Otherwise somebody’s time will be cut, which I do not want to happen.

Matthew Offord: I assure you that I will keep to that limit, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Every 15 minutes, someone in the UK is told that they are losing or have permanently lost their sight. That leaves them with a sense of bewilderment, and they often ask themselves what will happen next. In January 2011, I underwent an emergency operation to repair a torn retina in my right eye. If the operation had not taken place, I would have lost the sight in that eye. Back in September, I again experienced the same trauma in my other eye, which also required surgery. A possible
	side effect of the retina vitrectomy operations that I received is a cataract. In my case, the operations caused a partial one in the right eye and, more recently, a full one in my left eye.
	As a result of my first experience, I became actively involved with several sight-related issues in Parliament. I spoke in an Adjournment debate on the use of Avastin in age-related macular degradation. I campaigned for oral warnings on silent hybrid vehicles, and I sought to change the law so that an attack on a guide dog is considered as an attack on its owner. I welcomed the opportunity to open the Optegra eye hospital in Colindale in my constituency. I have urged constituents to have regular eye and sight tests, and I have lobbied Barnet clinical commissioning group to ensure there are enough funds to cover the demand for cataract operations.
	I want to raise the issue of eye clinic liaison officers. Across England, ECLOs help patients and their families to understand their diagnosis when someone loses their sight. They provide information and support, including referrals to other services. However, only 30% of eye clinics in the UK currently have some kind of qualified support.
	My constituents in Hendon are covered by the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust. Three hospitals in the area have an ophthalmology department—Barnet hospital, Edgware community hospital and the Royal Free hospital. First, Edgware community hospital does not have an ECLO, but it is a very small clinic. Although I would not necessarily call for an ECLO to be based there, it should certainly have access to one. Secondly, there is no qualified sight loss adviser service at Barnet hospital, although early intervention support is provided by the Hertfordshire Society for the Blind, to which we are grateful. Finally, as far as I am aware, the Royal Free hospital does not have a sight loss adviser service.
	During my regular visits to Moorfields eye hospital, I have witnessed the pressure that ophthalmology departments are under. During 2011-12 in England alone, the number of out-patient appointments for ophthalmology totalled 6.8 million, making it the third largest hospital service in terms of attendances. The demand for ophthalmology services will continue because the number of people with sight loss is set to increase.
	Recent research conducted with health care professionals in Wales has shown that sight loss advisers reduce the number of follow-up appointments through the immediate and ongoing support that they offer, which saves the NHS money in the longer term. On three occasions, I have sat in hospitals on my own facing the reality that I could lose my sight—a prospect that is frightening for anyone. Sight loss has a huge impact on the lives of those who suffer it and on their families. I believe that the expansion of ECLOs across the country would be a comparatively small financial price to pay for a service whose benefit cannot be measured in monetary terms.
	According to the Royal National Institute of Blind People, 66% of registered blind or partially sighted people of working age are not in employment. Two-thirds of working-age or employed people with sight loss experience restrictions in accessing and fully participating in employment. That is a great loss on many levels. Unsurprisingly, almost half of the public in another recent poll expected that emotional counselling would be available if they discovered that they were going to become blind. Sadly, that is not the case.
	I find it ironic that I stand here today, knowing that tomorrow I and several hundred other people will again face the prospect of losing our eyesight without any clinical support. Some people will have corneal replacements, some will have vitreo-retinal procedures and some will have glaucoma operations or canaloplasty. I expect to have cataract operations on both eyes. As I said, cataracts are a side effect of retina vitrectomy operations. There is now a clinical need to operate on both my eyes.
	In conclusion, it is clear that sight loss can have a devastating and profound impact on a person’s life, and it is shocking that people are left to face it on their own. The general public expect practical and emotional support to be available to people who are losing their sight. No one should have to return home on their own not understanding their sight condition, not knowing what support is out there and left isolated. Sight loss advisers provide a bridge between health and social care, and ensure that patients receive the support and information that they need to be independent and to learn the skills that they need in order to adapt to losing their sight. The service is cost-effective and benefits the clinic by ensuring that patients receive the necessary support, which results in clinicians being able to focus on treating and diagnosing patients. Today, I want to join the call of the RNIB for every eye department in the UK to have access to a sight loss adviser and for those vital posts to be funded permanently. We need to ensure that no one is left to face sight loss on their own.

Paul Burstow: I echo the last point made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord). It is right that that sort of investment is made because it provides a saving and makes a huge difference to people’s ability to live with the consequences of their eye problem. I commend him for what he said.
	Before the House rises for Christmas, I wish to raise several issues. The first concerns my constituent Lauren Dobbe, who is 14 years old. On Tuesday, I presented a petition to this House on her behalf to draw attention to her case. She has gastroparesis, and it took a lot of time and a lot of tests to get that diagnosis. The condition means that she is constantly nauseous, finds it hard to eat and is in pain for 24 hours every day of the week. Because of her condition, she now has to be fed by a tube. Her teenage years are being marred by this.
	The good news is that a procedure is available that involves fitting a gastric stimulator. It is not a cure, but it does manage the symptoms. The procedure has been recommended to Lauren by no fewer than four specialists. The bad news is that, despite the specialist opinions, NHS England, which is responsible for funding the procedure, is playing a game of pass the parcel with Lauren and her family. It sought a second opinion, but that endorsed the four specialist opinions that had been offered. It then tried to refer the matter to a hospital in London, but it turned out that the hospital could not provide the procedure.
	NHS England is now saying that the family must reapply because the procedure can be provided only in a different region. However, NHS England is one legal entity. It does not have separate legal bodies from one region to another. Its decision to sub-divide itself for administrative convenience should not become a barrier
	to people getting treatments. My request is simple: NHS England needs to take a common-sense view of the case and ensure that the procedure is provided, because it will make a huge difference to the life of a young lady in my constituency and give her back her teenage years.
	I turn to another matter, relating to the care sector. Over the past year I have had the privilege of chairing two commissions, one with Demos looking at the future of residential care and the other with the Local Government Information Unit looking at home care. Both commissions have independent experts with a wide range of talents, and on the subject of care workers both have come to broadly similar conclusions: that the low pay, low skill and low status of workers in the sector undermines care and the continuity of care. As a result of the low pay, the sector has among the highest turnover rates of any sector of our economy. As our society ages and more and more families are having to juggle work with both raising children and looking after parents, a failure to address those weaknesses in our care system will simply hold back growth in our economy.
	Both commissions have made some proposals to make care a career of esteem. They say that there need to be better and clearer training standards and a licence to practice. It is unacceptable that we recognise the need for bouncers and hairdressers to be licensed, but when someone comes into our own homes to administer the most intimate of care, we do not think they need a licence to practise.
	I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will feed it back to the Treasury and particularly to HMRC that they must redouble their efforts to pursue and prosecute cowboy care agencies that exploit their staff by paying less than the national minimum wage. I hope that he will also urge his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to lift their ban on the Care Quality Commission conducting themed inspections of councils’ commissioning practices, which sometimes condone that.
	The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) referred to mental health, and I want to raise a concern about the current international negotiations on the UN sustainable development goals, which make good references to the importance of physical health but do not give the same prominence to mental health. I hope that the Minister might enter some discussions with Ministers in the Department for International Development to ensure that the Government’s policy of parity of esteem as between physical and mental health is reflected in our international stance on global health goals.
	I turn now to several constituency points. I start with a 1960s office block in North Cheam, which is empty and has become increasingly derelict over many years and is an eyesore that many of my constituents would love to see demolished. There have been many delays to its redevelopment, despite the best efforts of councillors and local planning officers. One of the current causes of delay is that one unit is still occupied, by the bookies Ladbrokes. There is growing frustration in the neighbourhood that the company is holding up progress on the much needed demolition and replacement of the building. There is a perception that it is gambling on the prospect of getting a better pay-off to quit the building
	and give over its lease. I hope that Ladbrokes understands that that is bad for its reputation and for the economic development of North Cheam.
	Then there is Thameslink. One has only to look at Twitter, or indeed at my mailbag, to understand that every day commuters from my constituency suffer real misery because of the uncertainty about trains running on time and about their reliability. As a fellow south-west London MP, I hope the Minister will join me in asking Transport Ministers to take a hard look at the performance of the Thameslink franchise.
	Finally, I want to raise the issue of consultations. The consultation on renal services in south-west London is running over the Christmas period and will end on 9 January, and many people tell me that they were unaware that it was taking place. I hope that the Minister will raise with NHS England the need to extend the consultation period.
	I hope that at this time of year we can recognise the amazing work done by staff in this place, whether they work directly for us or for others, and the amazing work that people do in our constituencies. I thank the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) for paying tribute to his wife and family—he spoke for many of us who appreciate the support that family gives us. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all other hon. Members, a happy Christmas.

Andrew Stunell: I am delighted to take part in this Christmas Adjournment debate. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) said that it was his last, and it will be my last as well. I think it is also my first—I may have been missing something all these years, but I am delighted to take part now. I will start by wishing Members and staff here a happy Christmas, as well as members of my family and office staff in my constituency who work exceptionally hard on my behalf.
	I wish to raise two topics. The first is the Hazel Grove bypass, the A555. I raised this in my maiden speech in 1997, so it is not an issue that has just arisen on the street corner. There is a bit of history to this because back in the 1930s a dotted line on a map showed that there would be a bypass around Hazel Grove. Plenty has happened since I came to the House in 1997, and the most significant event was the south-east Manchester multi-modal study, which was an attempt to analyse the transport needs of the southern part of the Greater Manchester conurbation. Its report stated that improvements were needed to rail and bus services, cycle provision and also for pedestrians, and that that was essential if we were to reduce pollution and congestion in the area. The report went on to state that even when all those things had been done, a Hazel Grove bypass would still be needed. Given that the study was set up to prove the opposite of that, it confirmed what I and my constituents had been saying and campaigning on for years.
	For eight years after the publication of the south-east Manchester multi-modal study—commonly called SEMMMS—there were frequent attempts to get action on that road. I led a number of public campaigns and took every opportunity to raise the matter in the House
	and with Ministers. Not a lot happened in those eight years in practical terms, but I am delighted that much progress has been made since May 2010—I do not choose that date arbitrarily; it is a result of the coalition Government’s approach and the way they were ready to listen to the case put forward by my constituents. There has been a consultation and 70% of my constituents supported the road, with only 10% opposing it. The first phase of the road now has full funding and planning permission, and hearings on compulsory purchase have been held. The contractor has been appointed and I am delighted that phase 1 will start on site in March next year.
	Today I am speaking in favour of phase 2 of the bypass. I am delighted about phase 1, which mainly runs through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter). He and I stood shoulder to shoulder on this campaign throughout those years, and the first phase will run from the A6 in Hazel Grove via Woodford to the Manchester airport interchange with the M56. However, for my constituents in Hazel Grove, Romiley, Bredbury and Woodley, the traffic, pollution, congestion, heavy goods vehicles and pressure on their daily lives will not be lifted or reduced by phase 1. Phase 2 is needed, and I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to convey to Ministers elsewhere the fact that we need the next step and an update on SEMMMS. The Stockport metropolitan design team and engineers will have finished work on phase 1 by early next year, so from April onwards they will be ready to begin work on phase 2. My plea is simply for the necessary £300,000 to be allocated for that vital task.
	My second point relates to a more immediate and perhaps smaller scale event that may have wide consequences. There was a catastrophic house fire in Kennett drive in Bredbury in my constituency. It took place in a house that was built just over 10 years ago on an estate of 60 or so homes of the same character. Unexpectedly, the fire spread from one house to another, until four homes were completely destroyed. I am happy to report that there was no loss of life, although one firefighter was injured putting out the blaze.
	The issue has highlighted the failure in the expected performance of the fire protection of those homes. Of course, when a house catches fire it is likely that there will be damage to that home. However, the design of all homes in this country is intended to be such that a house fire will not spread to adjacent property, at least not before the fire brigade can get there and get it under control. On this occasion, it was unable to achieve that and four homes, consisting of a whole block, were completely destroyed. As you can imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, the residents in the remaining homes are very concerned about the implications for their homes. I have been working intensively with them, the fire authority and others to see what needs to be done.
	The opinion of the fire brigade, as expressed to me by its fire prevention officer, is that there was a breakdown in the construction, and that what is called technically the “fire stopping” was not properly in place, which led to the spread of the fire through what was a timber-framed building with brick cladding, making it unstoppable. I have had meetings with the National House Builders Confederation, which provided the building regulation control and the guarantee to householders on which they rely. I have studied the Building Research
	Establishment’s reports on fires in similar buildings and I am currently pushing the NHBC to extend its investigations on site to ensure that other homes do not suffer from the same fault of defective fire stopping. I am sure the Minister will understand that residents will not be satisfied until they know precisely what happened, and whether it is likely to happen to their homes as well.
	There is a wider point here. This type of construction is very widely used in the United Kingdom. Clearly, a fault has been revealed that needs to be examined and dealt with at national level. I have, over several weeks, put in a request to Mr Speaker for a full Adjournment debate on this topic. I hope, by raising it today, that I may have caught your ear as well, Mr Deputy Speaker, with the possibility of exploring the issue more fully and properly. With that, I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and others in the Chamber a very happy Christmas and a successful new year.

Martin Vickers: As I have done on many occasions in these Adjournment debates, I want to speak about my Cleethorpes constituency. I will focus on the wider local community of Grimsby and Cleethorpes. The central theme is something that applies to any provincial town represented in this House—one of identity.
	Grimsby and Cleethorpes are in fact one town. We locals, of course, know where the boundaries lie and each town has a distinctive history. Those of us born in Cleethorpes are Meggies, whereas over the border they are Grimbarians. Councillors and MPs have the great privilege of getting around and meeting many different people who contribute to their local communities through voluntary groups, churches and the like. Only recently, I was privileged to attend services at St Margaret’s church in Laceby and All Saints church in Goxhill. After the service, chatting over a cup of tea, I realised how much local people put into their local communities. It then comes as a bit of a shock when TV programmes such as “Skint” on Channel 4, which has featured Grimsby in the past month, in many respects denigrate local communities and make them feel rather unwanted.
	I do not intend to focus on the individuals who have occupied the programme’s storylines. They are characters who in slightly different circumstances could have been plucked from any part of the country. Some are struggling to come to terms with the world around them, others seem content with their lot yet, to most people’s eyes, are not achieving anything like their full potential, and others are struggling with drugs and alcohol.
	Channel 4 has deservedly come under a barrage of local criticism. We cannot stop such programmes being made, but surely it is reasonable to ask whether they benefit anyone. Perhaps we kid ourselves that we are watching with the intention of finding solutions to the predicaments of the participants. The local media have reflected local opinion, which is overwhelmingly hostile, and not only to the programme makers, but to Channel 4 itself.
	Although the Department for Communities and Local Government’s index of multiple deprivation statistics shows that the East Marsh ward in north-east Lincolnshire—that is where the programme was filmed—is classified as the
	second most deprived in England, it contains much that is good when it comes to community support, and it is communities that pull together feelings of mutual identity and provide for others. The widespread anger among local people about the one-sided “Skint” programme is fully justified, and the message has gone out very clearly from the local community: “Don’t come back. You will not be welcome.”
	Last weekend I attended two events on consecutive evenings in the East Marsh ward. The first was the Christmas concert provided by the excellent Grimsby Philharmonic Society, at which the solo performer was Michael Dore, the Cleethorpes-born singer. The following evening, along with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), I attended the annual Salvation Army carol concert. It was notable that each time the admirable Ivan Stead, who always presides on such occasions, mentioned that we were on the East Marsh, or that here was yet another example of the community coming together, while also raising £400 for the mayor’s charity, a ripple of applause went around the hall. Clearly the community, not all of whom were East Marsh residents, were feeling rather sore about the programme and wanted to show some support.
	The point that keeps coming through is identity. We are passing through a period when the electorate feel more and more remote from the political process, and the further we travel from Westminster, the more remote it can seem. I hope that the current debate about devolution to England will deliver English votes for English laws fairly quickly. However, as I mentioned to the Leader of the House when he announced his programme yesterday, I hope that we will have the opportunity to look over a slightly longer period at the structures and powers of local government, because they, too, have an essential role in community identity and in providing for local communities. It is essential that units of government, at whatever level, follow boundaries that people can identify with. If people feel no allegiance to their unit of government, we will not be wholly successful.
	In my part of the world we lived through the disastrous local government reorganisation of the ’70s, with the creation of county Humberside. People felt no allegiance to it, so eventually it withered on the vine. Only last week the Scunthorpe Telegraph was again reporting that Hull city council is planning some sort of land-grab, in what appears to local people to be a reconfiguration that will recreate county Humberside. That will simply not work. Individuals need and value their sense of identity. It is not created by political boundaries, but if we can strengthen that sense of identity by creating administrative units that reflect local communities, we will all benefit.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, I join others in wishing you, members of staff and all Members of the House a happy Christmas.

Jeremy Lefroy: It is a great privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), and I echo entirely what he said about identity—in Stafford and Staffordshire, during difficult periods over the past few years, we have experienced that same sense of identity.
	Yesterday, we heard the welcome news that the number of people out of work claiming jobseeker’s allowance had fallen in Stafford by 452 in 12 months. Stafford’s strengths are many—in engineering, especially energy, and in information technology, health services, defence and consumer chemicals—and signs of investment are everywhere. There is the substantial expansion of the Ministry of Defence base, to welcome two new Signals regiments in 2015; two new business parks; major developments in the town centre; Northfield village, which brings together a new health centre, extra care housing, a first-class dementia care home and a community centre; and the opening of Pencric in Penkridge, which is a superb example of extra care housing, with a mixture of homes to buy and houses for social rent.
	Stafford borough and especially Stafford have also been clear about the need to build more homes to meet current and future needs—more than 10,000 of them—but in a planned way. Several developers have tried to break open a plan on which so much time and effort have been spent. Fortunately, thus far, it has been to no avail, but I urge the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make it clear that an agreed plan is an agreed plan and that efforts by developers immediately to throw it into the bin will not succeed.
	After five and a half years, two Francis inquiries and a trust special administration, our hospital, now the county hospital, can finally focus on what my constituents and its excellent staff wish to do: deliver top-quality, safe care. I thank the Support Stafford Hospital group and many others for all they have done to get this far. The hospital is now part of the University Hospitals of North Midlands Trust. I believe that this coming together will bring both challenges and benefits. We will see benefits through increased investment in A and E, cancer and dialysis services, and refurbished wards and theatres, but the challenge will be to ensure that the trust makes best use of the county hospital for my constituents and others. The hospital is a tremendous asset, and our community campaign has managed to save its A and E and acute status and even to save it from closure, which some people feared might happen.
	As we debated this morning, there is great pressure on A and E everywhere. In Stafford, we have a much improved A and E that is open 14 hours a day. Increasing that back up to 24 hours a day with paediatric cover will bring great benefits both to Stafford and the rest of the region, where hospitals are under pressure. The proposal for an overnight, doctor-led service at the county hospital from April is welcome and will help, but I will continue to argue for a return to 24/7 A and E until it happens, because it makes absolute sense and the cost is manageable.

Simon Burns: My hon. Friend is being somewhat modest, because he omits to mention the tremendous work he has done for the hospital ever since he became a candidate. We should also mention the work of our hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).

Jeremy Lefroy: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. He was a doughty supporter as a Minister in the Department of Health, which we appreciated greatly.
	A 24/7 A and E department would guarantee 24/7 access for children to paediatric emergency doctors. In the meantime, I and my constituents need assurances that any transfer of services will not happen unless independent experts say that the arrangements are safe.
	Next year will see the review into consultant-led maternity services. Let me be clear: this must be properly carried out, as the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary have said. There can be no pre-ordained outcome. I have still heard no convincing explanation why our major European neighbours can run much smaller consultant-led units but we cannot, especially when, as with our county hospital, a hospital is part of a large trust that could surely provide such services on a network basis.
	Our part of Staffordshire is tendering for cancer and end-of-life services. I understand the reasoning—a desire to integrate the services better to improve care and outcomes—but, as I have said before, I believe that this form of tender is not the right way to go about things. If there is a need for an integrator to help better joint working, let us search for an organisation to work alongside the providers; there is no need for the integrator to be the commissioner as well. It will simply add another layer of management. I therefore urge the Department, NHS England, Macmillan, which is involved, and the clinical commissioning groups to reconsider my proposal for an integrator that helps providers to work better together but does not actually commission the services.
	Our libraries are at the heart of many of our local communities. Staffordshire has had a consultation on their future, and I welcome the county’s desire to keep all its libraries open, but the initial proposals for my constituency are flawed. The main towns in the county should all have a library in the top category—“library extra”. I simply cannot understand how Stafford and Cannock were not placed in this category, but Newcastle-under-Lyme, Burton, Lichfield and Tamworth were. That needs correcting. Penkridge is also a large and thriving community with an excellent library. As stated in the petition I presented here last week, it needs professional staffing—assisted, of course, by the volunteers who are very willing to support it. The other libraries in my constituency in Rising Brook and Holmcroft also need the support of professional staff.
	Let me turn to other matters concerning my constituents. Nuisance telephone calls and copycat websites that pretend to be official, but charge people money unnecessarily are the bane of many constituents’ lives. I urge the Government to mount an education campaign to alert people to the free services and to work with search engines to ensure that the free Government services are always top of the listing.
	Respite care funding is another issue. This Government have introduced more of it, which I welcome, but there is increasing need for people to have respite care. The millions of carers around the country depend on it.
	I welcome the steps that the Minister for Schools has taken to improve schools funding for the underfunded counties and authorities around the country. In Staffordshire, however, we have not gone far enough, and there is a problem with the formula under which special care funding is calculated. I welcome the fact that the Minister has now included the county of Staffordshire within the 10 authorities where that is being investigated. General practice and health funding need looking at,
	too. The weighting of funding for older people is not sufficient, which certainly affects my constituency and my county.
	Constituents have raised a number of other matters, often relating to older people and their treatment by pension funds and their tax treatment. A widow who had been married to a policeman who died in the course of his service has found that, having married again, she is not able to collect her pension. There seems to be some confusion about whether that should be the case. I have been told that it should not be under new regulations, but her experience is that she is unable to receive her widow’s pension.
	I discovered last week from a constituent whose husband died more than 50 years ago—and she has not remarried—that she is not entitled to the transferable inheritance tax allowance on her property, whereas someone whose spouse had died more recently would be entitled to that transferable allowance on the estate. The estate effectively claims on both spouses, the original and the current, making two allowances. I believe that this amounts to some sort of age discrimination, which the Treasury could look into.
	I would like to bring to the attention of the Department of Health the matter of retrospective care refunds. There was a problem a few years ago when families were overcharged for care. A process of refunding is going on, but it is taking too long, with bureaucratic hurdles in the way. I ask the Department of Health to look into this and to work with CCGs to ensure that the refunds, many of them dating back as far as 2006 and 2007, are given to the people to whom they are owed.
	Finally, I would like to thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for all the work you do and to wish you a very happy Christmas. I would like to thank all the staff and everybody in my constituency. I thank the voluntary organisations, and then there are local councillors, to whom we do not often give enough credit. This year, when the Staffordshire mayoralty is 400 years old, it is particularly important to remember local councillors and the work they do, along-side volunteers and everybody else who makes my constituency such a wonderful place in which to work and to live.

Thomas Docherty: I shall be as brief as I can manage, so that the Deputy Leader of the House has enough time to respond fully to all Members who have spoken. It is a pleasure to respond briefly today. As far as I am aware, this will be our last pre-recess Adjournment debate before the end of this Parliament.
	It has been a pleasure to shadow the Deputy Leader of the House over these past six months or so. We sparred a bit over the Deregulation Bill and the Recall of MPs Bill, but I hope he has a good Christmas and new year, and an opportunity to get along to Selhurst park with his son and hopefully see some Palace victories over the new year period.
	Let me now comment on a few of the points that have been made today. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) made a thoughtful speech about railways. He and I may disagree on whether the Labour Scottish Government’s expenditure should be included in the electrification figures, but he made some valid points about investment.

Simon Burns: I assume from his generous comment that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I was talking in the context of England, and that my figures were therefore correct.

Thomas Docherty: I think—if I may say so gently—that the confusion may have been confounded when I referred to the Airdrie-Bathgate rail link and the right hon. Gentleman was unaware that that was in Scotland. Let me move on, however, to his useful remarks about suicides and attempted suicides at this time of year, particularly those involving railway lines. He and I will both know, because of our backgrounds, that not only are many of the very unhappy individuals who seek to throw themselves under trains unsuccessful, but horrific and life-changing injuries may result from their actions. I am sure that all Members would urge any constituent who faces such troubling times to contact organisations such as the Samaritans. I commend their work, and also that of Network Rail and the rail companies which have invested a great deal of time in recent years in trying to minimise the number of cases that occur.
	The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) raised the issue of the 1812 war. He knows of my interest in that subject, and he was right to draw attention to the 200 years of close co-operation between our two nations. He was also right to point out that a third nation participated in that war. When we stand at the Dispatch Boxes, which rest on a table that was donated by our Commonwealth cousins in Canada, we are always grateful for their continued friendship.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) referred to Bahrain. He will not be surprised to learn that Opposition Front Benchers do not share his particular view of the decision to set up a base there, but he was right—as he was earlier today—to call on the Government to organise a debate about foreign policy and our defence posture in the new year, particularly as in 2015 we shall have a national security strategy from the new Government. We strongly support that call, and we hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will refer it to the Leader of the House for consideration.
	As ever, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) made an impassioned and knowledgeable speech about the situation in North Korea. She has a tremendous track record in relation to the persecution of Christians, and—again, as ever—she made a hugely important contribution. I know that her work has the support of all Members.
	The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) spoke in support of what I suppose could be called the bird communities in the United Kingdom. He is a champion of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and, as he knows, my researcher Sally Webber says that he is probably its biggest supporter in the House of Commons. The RSPB will certainly miss him, even if not all Back Benchers are entirely forgiving of his strong leadership during his time in the Whips Office.
	I want to mention some of those who serve the House. Many Members on both sides of the Chamber have rightly thanked the House’s staff, and, on behalf of the Opposition, I too thank all those in all the Departments, particularly Hansard, the Doorkeepers, and those in Visitor Services. I also want to highlight a small group of individuals, some of whom have retired or are about
	to retire after decades of public service. I am grateful to the Clerk of the House for his assistance in the compiling of this list.
	Roger Rankine worked at the House for nearly 27 years. He started as a joiner working in the outbuildings, before working his way up to become a higher technical officer. In that role, he covered the external works for state openings and has led the search team for that event. Roger is sports mad and an extremely keen golfer.
	Rosalind Bolt retired at the end of October. She served for 21 years in the House. She started her career in the accounts payable team and finished as office manager in the web and intranet service. She knew many, many people across the parliamentary estate and was, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, widely respected. She was always quick to offer support and guidance to her colleagues and had a strong sense of the “right way” to interact with colleagues, stakeholders and suppliers.
	Mel Barlex, whom I had the pleasure of working with in particular on restoration and renewal, stood down earlier this autumn as parliamentary director of estates. He turned a struggling organisation into a high-performing delivery team, providing maintenance, capital works and property services to both Houses.
	Michael—Mick—Brown was a Doorkeeper who retired at the start of the summer recess. He had been here since 1990, and before that had served in the Royal Navy and is a Falklands veteran. Ian McDonald, a fellow Cumbrian, will be retiring this week. He worked here from December 2006 and before that served in the Metropolitan police. Sonia Mcintosh retired in October 2014 after some 30 years’ service in the House. Chris Ridley completed 37 years of public service, retiring at the end of October 2014. He worked in the civil service and the House of Commons over that period. Peter Thomas started in the catering services as a kitchen steward in 1990. He was the first person to come into work at the weekend for the lying in state of the Queen Mother.
	Janice Spriggs retires today from the House of Commons catering service after 38 years of service. Janice joined as a waitress in the Members’ Dining Room before moving to the Harcourt Room, which is now, of course, the Churchill Dining Room, and then the Strangers’ Bar. She ran the 6th Floor 7 Milbank room until its closure. Latterly, she has worked on the Principal Floor managing the Strangers’ Dining Room. I know she will be fondly missed by many customers and colleagues.
	Finally, Carol Hill, the heritage cleaning team manager, has retired after 15 years in the House. Her team is responsible for looking after the heritage areas in the Palace.
	I, on behalf of the Opposition, want to wish all those public servants a very enjoyable retirement. I am sure they will all be trying to have a peaceful Christmas, and will perhaps even take a slice of Chorley cake to top off their Christmas lunch. Let me end by wishing you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all colleagues a very peaceful and merry Christmas, and a happy new year.

Tom Brake: It is a pleasure to respond, for what will be the last time in this Parliament, to the pre-recess Adjournment
	debate. Earlier, we heard that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has previously taken this debate, referred to Members who contributed to the debate as characters from different TV series. I would, perhaps, liken those sitting here today to characters we would all recognise from our local pub. There is the one who always bangs on about how immigrants take our jobs. There is the one who always goes on about medical problems. There is always one who only ever drinks orange juice. There are others who will insist on talking about birds at great length. Finally, there will be another who will always complain about their trains being late—that is me, incidentally.
	This debate was, as always, opened very effectively by the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess). As usual, he ran through a large number of issues, and I will try to respond to at least some of them. I think he started by suggesting that, following the renovation works, we might never return to this place. He will be relieved to hear that I suspect his concerns in that respect are unfounded. He referred to the facilities being empty and the prices being too high, and then went through a long list of local issues, including scrap metal, energy prices and the world athletics—and I want to commend his schools, Southend high school for boys and Southend high school for girls, on qualifying to represent England at that event. He also referred to the Music Man project and to Councillor David Stanley, and then proceeded to plug that event. He did not tell us what the ticket prices would be, but he no doubt would have done so if time had allowed, as well as providing us with a link so that we could purchase tickets online. He also referred to the talent show that is being launched as part of the alternative city of culture events in 2017. I think that the House would like to be assured that he will be taking part in that talent show himself.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to all-party parliamentary groups. Initially, he described them as “farcical”, but then went on to describe the very significant role that he plays in a number of APPGs. He rightly highlighted the fact that, following the significant loss suffered in the Philippines after the cyclone struck, the authorities there took the necessary action. That shows that, if countries take steps to deal with climate change, mitigation can have an effect, even if it is not always successful in reducing the amount of damage inflicted on the infrastructure of a country. He referred to Bahrain, and I will come back to that subject shortly. He also mentioned Iran.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) might want to talk to him, if he has not already done so, about the fire safety issue that he identified. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to something that Members on both sides of the House are concerned about—the issue relating to firefighters. He said that if a firefighter failed a fitness test through no fault of their own and did not qualify for ill-health retirement, they would be redeployed or receive an unreduced pension. That is a significant concession that is worth underlining.

Lyn Brown: May I say something to the right hon. Gentleman—very gently, as it is Christmas—about the repeated statement that firefighters in those circumstances will get redeployment or a full pension? If he reads the statutory instrument that was laid today, he will see that
	the Minister is going to ask the fire and rescue authorities to do that, but that there is no requirement for them to comply. We will not be doing anyone a service by continuing to repeat that there is to be a requirement for jobs and full pensions to be guaranteed.

Tom Brake: As I understand it, the situation will then be monitored to ensure that that happens.
	The hon. Member for Southend West also referred to his own personal contribution to the work done by maternity wards, in that he has five children. I congratulate him on that. He mentioned the mental health manifesto. He also talked about the all-party parliamentary hepatology group. He started that point with a reference to the season of good will, then referred to obesity, hepatitis and alcohol misuse, which was a bit of a downer. He was making a serious point, however.
	If I were to refer to all the other things that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in the debate, I would not have time to refer to anyone else. However, his most important subject was the one he raised at the end of his speech. It is a concern that he has raised repeatedly, and it relates to his local health service. I am sure that the Department of Health, his clinical commissioning group and the trust in his area will have heard his arguments loud and clear.
	The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), who is no longer in his place, referred to the estuary airport. I agree with him that that project was never going to happen, because the airlines would not have wanted to pay for it or to pass on the costs to their passengers. He referred to the important role of London assembly members in holding Transport for London to account, and I would like to congratulate Caroline Pidgeon and Stephen Knight on the role that they play in the assembly in that respect. The hon. Gentleman supported the idea of Transport for London being more open to engaging transport users in the system, and I agree with him on that. He referred to local authority funding cuts, which other Members have also raised; that is clearly an issue. Labour Members have accepted that the deficit needs to be addressed, and that is one way of doing it. If they find it unacceptable, they must come up with a financial alternative, but I am afraid that none has been forthcoming.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) referred to Gatwick, where other aviation proposals have been made, raising concerns about some of the financial aspects and the passenger projection increases. If the intention is for an increase from 30 million to 90 million by 2050, clearly there will be a need for significant public transport investment in infrastructure around Gatwick.
	The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) touched on the issue of local government and the tough financial settlement. She referred to the NHS pay rise, where people have been given a minimum of a 1% increase across the board, although I agree that that is not the full pay increase that some had been expecting. She referred to the need for more doctors and nurses. I am pleased to say that there are 9,000 more doctors and 3,000 more nurses. Perhaps more helpfully, she referred to John’s Campaign, which is about allowing carers to stay in hospital. I can confirm that, by means of an exchange of texts, the relevant Minister has confirmed that he would be happy to meet her and campaigners to discuss that issue.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who is not in his place, referred to the A303. Anyone who has gone to that part of the country will welcome the investment being made in that road. He referred to the need to accelerate the implementation of rural broadband, on which, again, we would all agree. He also referred to the Devon Freewheelers, talking about bikers who deliver body parts—he paused at that point and we all started to worry about what this meant, but it turned out to be about transplants. We should certainly support such charities. I believe he was calling for NHS funding, but often charities work because they are charitable enterprises. I am sure, however, that anything the Government can do to support them in terms of publicity and ensuring that they can operate effectively will be done.
	The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) referred to hysteroscopy, as she did last year, and it was equally as uncomfortable for us listening to it as it was 12 months ago. I am pleased to hear that the Minister with responsibility for public health did respond to her, but clearly she has identified that there is an ongoing issue and so I will follow that up again and make sure that she gets a further response, which I hope will clarify that things have moved on and what further can be planned. She also raised the issue of pancreatic cancer, the silent cancer. More needs to be done to raise the profile of that, so that we have a better chance of early diagnosis. I commend her for drawing that to the House’s attention.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) rightly drew attention to North Korea and the horrendous situation there. Anyone who is in any doubt about that can still go on to Google Earth to look at the concentration camps in North Korea. I commend to all Members “Escape from Camp 14” on Shin Dong-hyuk. I have read it and it sets out in the bleakest terms possible exactly what conditions political prisoners and others in North Korean camps are kept in.
	The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) referred to the estuary airport. [Interruption.] He is not in his place. He then talked about a housing development of 5,000 homes and he did a very effective job of opposing those plans—it was as effective a job as he did when he was supporting them before he defected to the United Kingdom Independence party. It is Christmas—a time for caring, reflection, forgiveness and good will—and I know he is running a fundraising campaign whereby he is seeking £7.30 contributions from each and everyone to support his legal case against the Conservative party. I am not sure how many people will want to contribute to that appeal fund.
	We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), who will be very relieved to hear that it is perfectly in order for schools within the national curriculum to discuss the 1812 to 1814 war. I will, if he wishes, set out afterwards precisely how that is possible. We have given teachers the flexibility to do that. Clearly I hope that many teachers will have listened to his pleas for them to pick up this issue and will respond accordingly.
	We had a contribution from the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on the subject of the base in Bahrain. The Leader of the House responded to that point in some detail this morning, drawing on the knowledge he had gained from his previous role as Foreign Secretary. The hon. Gentleman and I have been
	lobbied by representatives about the human rights situation in Bahrain. Although the Foreign and Commonwealth Office thinks that some positive steps have been taken, it is clear that there are still areas that need to be addressed. In particular, more needs to be done on the accountability of police personnel and the investigation and sentencing of those alleged to have committed torture and mistreatment. There is a recognition that action needs to be taken.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to local authority funding and the private rented sector, which he does on a regular basis, and I commend him for that. He will be as disappointed as I was—indeed as almost everyone was in this House—that the Bill about revenge evictions put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) was talked out.
	We then had a positive and informed contribution on the subject of trains and the reliability problems that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) faces on his service. I can commiserate with him on that matter, as the works at London Bridge at the moment are causing chaos on the Southern and Thameslink services, which frustrates me virtually every day of the week when I attempt to get into this place. I will refer to the Secretary of State for Transport his plea for faster electrification of the Felixstowe and Nuneaton line.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on again raising the case of Shaker Aamer, to which the Government accords high priority. He again called on the Prime Minister to raise the matter with President Obama, and I will ensure that that request is conveyed to him. The Prime Minister last raised the matter in June 2013, but there have been interventions since from the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. He is right to continue to raise that particular issue.
	I regret the forthcoming departure of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall). Having been on a Select Committee tour to Brazil and Venezuela with him, I can say that he is excessively good company and one of the friendliest, most considerate and courteous Members of this House. We will all miss him, as will the customers of his store. He also thanked the Whips Office, which is probably rather rare in this place.
	The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) talked about sight loss. I commend him for the work he is doing on that issue and draw to his attention the importance of ensuring that sight tests are available for people with learning disabilities, which is an issue I have taken up recently given the high level of prevalence of sight impairment within that group. He raised the matter of sight loss advisers and the need for expanding eye clinic liaison officers, and I will draw them to the attention of the Department of Health.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) raised a number of issues, including that of his constituent, Lauren, and the runaround that he is getting from NHS England in relation to the services or support that will help her to deal with gastroparesis. As he has often done in this place, he referred to a number of issues to do with care, on which he is a real champion, and he referred to the two reports
	on residential care and home care. He asked me to pursue with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs agencies that pay less than the minimum wage to carers, and of course I will do that. He talked about the need to ensure that there was parity of esteem in relation to the millennium development goals and the role that the Department for International Development is playing.
	Finally, he referred to the short time frame for the renal consultation. As I understand it, that is necessary because the changes need to be implemented by 1 April next year, and it will be difficult to achieve that if the consultation period is extended. I am sure that he will follow that up with the Department of Health if he does not feel that that is satisfactory.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove referred to the A555, for which he has consistently campaigned along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) since 1997. Phase 2 might be his legacy, but that might be in the next Parliament. I am sure that he will be able to get his name attached to it in some shape or form and I hope that the money for that phase will be forthcoming. He raised the issue of fires in houses, which he could take up with the all-party parliamentary group, but I will ensure that it is drawn to the attention of the appropriate Minister as there is clearly a potentially significant issue that could affect not only that estate but many others around the country.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) is a regular attendee at these events and I welcome him again to this one. He referred to a number of significant events in his constituency and the need for a rapprochement between the electorate and Westminster. He also referred to English votes for English laws, which we need to move on quickly. However, I do not think we can rush it and there are issues that need to be considered alongside it, including the devolution of more power below the level of England and, in my view, the need for a constitutional convention.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) raised a number of local issues and I commend him for his work in campaigning to improve the NHS in his area as well as the campaign he is running to ensure that his A and E is returned to a 24-hour-a-day service. I wish him well. He also referred to libraries, and I think we collectively support the network of libraries in our constituencies and will want to see them strengthened by the provision of the sorts of things recommended in the recent report, such as wi-fi provision, innovation and ensuring that they can operate as a network. My hon. Friend referred to other issues that affect many Members of Parliament, including nuisance telephone calls and copycat websites, which I think we can all do a lot to campaign against through our use of our own social media, for instance. He also referred to local councillors and I want to take this opportunity to commend them for their work.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) referred to the Recall of MPs Bill. I do not know whether he noticed that Lord Campbell-Savours was rather lacking in festive spirit when he described the changes that the hon. Gentleman had implemented as ones made by boys in short trousers in the shadow Cabinet. Perhaps he can take that up with Dale later.
	The hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on foreign policy, which I shall certainly pass on to the Leader of the House, although I think that contrary to the impression
	that was given we are not a zombie Parliament. We have important business to transact and that might be a matter for the Backbench Business Committee. I thank the hon. Gentleman for thanking members of staff individually, some specifically for what they have achieved in the House.
	In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you and wish you a merry Christmas. I wish all Members in the Chamber, the Clerks, the officers of the Serjeant at Arms, the staff who care for us here and our own staff a merry Christmas.
	Let me finish where we started the debate with the final words of the hon. Member for Southend West. I thank the emergency services that will be looking after us over the Christmas period. I thank the ambulance service in St Helier, the fire service in Wallington, the police in Sutton and the NHS staff in all our hospitals, particularly at St Helier hospital. I know that they will be working over the Christmas break to keep us all healthy and safe, so merry Christmas to them all.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I also take this opportunity to say thank you to all right hon. and hon. Members? I wish them all the best for Christmas and a peaceful new year, as well as all the visitors of this House and the staff who keep this place going.

JOBSEEKER’S ALLOWANCE (SANCTIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

Stephen Timms: I am very grateful to Mr Speaker for this opportunity, following my point of order in the Chamber last week. My aim is simple: to obtain from the Minister an answer to a straightforward parliamentary question to which I have—in vain—been seeking an answer for the past year and a half.
	We know from the Trussell Trust that about a quarter of a million people went to a food bank in the past year because their benefit had been sanctioned and they did not have enough money to buy food for themselves and their family.
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

Stephen Timms: Published official figures show that the number of people sanctioned rose from about half a million in the year before the election to a million in the past year. That figure includes sanctions subsequently overturned on appeal. The Minister has been quoted as saying, and has said from time to time, that only a very small fraction of claimants receive a sanction. That is a fair comment about any given month, but in fact about a quarter of jobseeker’s allowance claimants get a sanction at some point during their claim.
	The increase from half a million to a million is obviously a big one, but it is not clear why, from very few people before the election, the number forced to use a food bank because of a sanction has rocketed to a quarter of a million. Early last year, I tabled a parliamentary question to ask not how many people had been sanctioned, but how much money was being taken away from them all. I received an answer from the Minister’s predecessor on 25 March last year which I found very helpful.
	The Minister’s answer showed that in the year before the election, the amount of benefit withheld from fixed JSA sanctions was £11 million—that is, a little less than £1 million per month. In April to October 2012—the latest period for which data were available at that time—the amount was £60 million, so £10 million per month. That represents a tenfold increase in the amount withheld, as opposed to a twofold rise in the number of people affected. It struck me that that was the beginning of an explanation for why so many people had been forced to use a food bank as a result of a sanction: the amount of money being taken away was greatly increased.
	Those data went up to October 2012. In that month, a new and significantly harsher system of sanctions was introduced. The minimum period for a sanction was increased to four weeks and it became possible to remove claimants’ benefits for a full three years. We do not yet know precisely how many people have received a three-year benefit sanction, but it appears that the number is already over 1,000 across the country, so there seems little doubt that following the tenfold increase between the election and October 2012, the amount being withheld in sanctions must have increased substantially further since October 2012.
	Once the financial year 2012-13 was over, I again tabled a written parliamentary question to obtain an updated answer to my earlier question, in order to find out how much had been withheld in the second half of the financial year 2012-13—that is, after the changes introduced in October 2012. This time, the Minister’s predecessor provided me with a much less helpful answer. Dated 24 June 2013, it appears at column 30W:
	“An estimate of the amount withheld as a result of benefit sanctions cannot be made for a number of reasons. Primarily, we do not know what benefits and payments the claimants would have received had the sanctions not been applied.”—[Official Report, 24 June 2013; Vol. 565, c. 30W.]
	I was puzzled by that, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I know you understand, because a perfectly good answer had been provided to the same question three months earlier. Early this year I had another go, as I told Mr Speaker, in a three-page letter which he described in responding to my point of order as “a substantial academic essay”. I should say that I also forwarded that letter to the office of the Minister, so that she knew exactly what the simple and straightforward question was to which I was seeking an answer through this debate.
	The current Minister, who is in her place today and who had by then taken over, told me in a written answer on 5 February, at column 268W:
	“The information is not available in the format requested.
	Trends in sanctions are better understood by looking at the number and type of sanction decisions—which are routinely published (the last publication, covering sanctions to end June 2013, was published in November 2013”—[Official Report, 5 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 268W.]
	Again, the information was provided in the format requested on 25 March 2013, so I could not understand the rationale for that answer saying that it could not be done in the format I had requested. The Minister’s suggestion to me that trends in sanctions are better understood by asking something else made it hard to avoid the inference that she simply did not want to reveal the answer, as her predecessor willingly had done.
	On 9 April this year, I tried again, at column 300W, and was equally unsuccessful. Last month, I tried yet again, with Question 215334, and received this answer:
	“The Department does not estimate the amount of benefit withheld as a result of benefit sanctions.”
	Yet on 25 March 2013, the Department did provide precisely such an estimate. On 25 November, hoping to understand why an answer that could be given in March 2013 could not be repeated now, I tabled this question:
	“Pursuant to the Answer of 24 November 2014 to Question 215334 and the Answer of 4 July 2013, Official Report, column 736W, (a) on what date and (b) for what reason his Department stopped estimating the amount of benefit withheld as a result of the application of sanctions.”
	On 1 December, the Minister sent me this answer:
	“The Department has never estimated the amount of benefit withheld as a result of benefit sanctions.”
	As you will appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that that was not right, because the answer I received on 25 March 2013 contained a table headed “Benefit withheld from fixed JSA sanctions (£ million)”, so the Minister’s predecessor provided precisely the estimate that her latest answer claims never to have provided. The Minister’s answer went on:
	“The answer of 25 March 2013, Official Report, column 986W, on social security benefits, contained a calculation of the amount
	of jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) that claimants would have received if they had continued to be on benefit for the length of a fixed sanction. This is not the same as the amount withheld as a result of sanctions.”
	I thought, perhaps a little naively, that the Minister was finally giving me a hint about how to obtain the information I wanted, so on 2 December I tabled this question:
	“How much additional jobseeker’s allowance in total claimants subject to a fixed sanction would have received if they had continued to be on the benefit for the length of time of their sanction in (a) 2012-13 and (b) 2013-14.”
	Unfortunately, my optimism was ill-founded and short-lived. On 5 December, I received a repeat of the refusals I had previously received:
	“The Department doesn’t make an estimate the amount of benefit that would have been withheld as a result of benefit sanctions.”
	As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I have already pointed it out several times in this debate, the Department did make precisely such an estimate in the written answer to me dated 25 March 2013.
	I have now, over a period of a year and a half, tabled six written parliamentary questions to obtain straight -forward and important information that was provided in a written answer in March 2103, but in all that time and with all that effort, I have so far drawn a complete blank. In exasperation, I appealed to Mr Speaker for advice, and he suggested this debate as a way to enable the Minister finally to provide the requested information.
	I have discussed this matter with Dr David Webster of Glasgow university, the leading academic authority on benefit sanctions. He estimates that the amount of benefit withheld in sanctions is now running at £300 million per year. If that is the case, it is important that Parliament knows it. It should not be necessary for people to make speculative estimates—the Minister should provide the answer. She will no doubt want also to provide various caveats, clarifications and health warnings, as did the initial answer on 25 March 2013, but she should provide Parliament with the basic information being sought.
	In preparing for this debate, I had a look at the ministerial code, which says:
	“Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.”
	That is all I am asking for. I believe that as a Member of this House, ever grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker for upholding the privileges of Members, I am, and we are, entitled to a substantive answer.
	I applied for this debate within minutes of Mr Speaker giving me his advice. One unexpected result was that I have received a number of representations expressing real worry about the impact of current jobseeker’s allowance sanctions. The Salvation Army has told me:
	“The more stringent conditionality introduced into the benefit system under this government and the resulting rise in benefit sanctions are having a profound effect on many of the people we work with…we urge the government to review the system and ensure that adequate systems are put in place to make sure that benefit sanctions are applied in a way that is both appropriate and proportional.”
	St Mungo’s Broadway has said:
	“Under current sanctions regimes St Mungo’s Broadway clients are under threat of being sanctioned for failing to meet conditions
	which do not help them to enter and remain in work or which they cannot meet. People who are homeless are more likely to be sanctioned than other claimants.”
	The Joseph Rowntree Foundation stated in a report published in September:
	“Sanctions are now used much more frequently within the welfare benefits system. The severity of sanctions has also increased and conditionality is now applied to previously exempt groups (e.g. lone parents, disabled people). Benefit sanctions are having a strongly disproportionate effect on young people under 25, and there is also evidence of severe impacts on homeless people and other vulnerable groups.”
	In a striking representation, Barnardo’s says:
	“Particularly worrying…is the impact that the harsher conditionality regime is having on our services which work primarily with young people. Barnardo’s run a number of services which work with vulnerable young people, for example services which offer support to care leavers, homeless young people, or teenage parents. Amongst this subset of services over two thirds (67%)”—
	in a survey it carried out—
	“said that the increased conditionality and greater use of sanctions were having an impact on their service users. Our services report that sanctions often happen because of misunderstanding on the part of the young people...The impact of sanctions on this group of young people, who often lack family support, is to plunge them into destitution, leaving them reliant on insecure credit, and often resulting in them ending up in rent arrears, putting their tenancy at risk. As one service manager commented: ‘We have a number of care leavers being sanctioned which results in extreme poverty.’”
	There is now, therefore, very widespread concern about what is happening, beyond the very striking conclusion in the report published last month by the Trussell Trust, the Church of England, Oxfam and the Child Poverty Action Group that between 19% and 28% of people driven to use food banks were there because of a benefit sanction.
	Parliament is entitled to be told what is going on, so will the Minister inform the House how much is currently being withheld from jobseeker’s allowance claimants in benefit sanctions?

Esther McVey: As this is the last parliamentary business before the Christmas recess, I want to start by wishing you Mr Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and all other Members and parliamentary staff a merry Christmas and happy new year. I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate in order to bring closure to the matter and give him the clarification he seeks.
	Sanctions are not a tool to save money, nor were they ever designed with that purpose in mind. In fact, sanctions play a vital role in supporting the conditionality of a regime. They encourage claimants to comply with the requirements that are designed to help them move into or prepare for work. Sanctions have always been a part of the benefit system since they were first designed and introduced. Successive UK Governments have applied sanctions.
	There is a link between entitlement to benefits and engagement with the labour market. As Matt Oakley said in his review:
	“Benefit sanctions provide a vital backdrop in the social security system for jobseekers”
	and are a
	“key element of the mutual obligation that underpins both the effectiveness and fairness of the social security system”.
	We know that, internationally, most developed economies use sanctions. As the OECD said recently:
	“There seems little reason to doubt that, especially in countries with high levels of benefit coverage of the non-employed working-age population, the success of activation policies in relation to unemployment is critical to achieving high employment rates.”
	To go back to the right hon. Gentleman’s parliamentary question, the response made it clear why we cannot estimate, and have never estimated, the amount of benefit withheld because of a sanction. The Department does not make an estimate of the amount of benefit withheld as a result of benefit sanctions. Sanctions are designed to ensure claimants comply with their requirements to move off benefits and into work.
	The answer of 25 March 2013 on social security benefits—Official Report, column 986W—made it clear that it is not possible robustly to estimate the actual amounts withheld, as we do not know what would have happened in the absence of sanctions. For example, some claimants who leave benefits during a sanction may do so irrespective of the application of the sanction, while others may do so because of the sanction.
	As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, we provided some data in the response to the parliamentary question. The Department wrongly interpreted the question to mean the maximum amount of benefit that claimants would have received had they remained on benefits for the length of the sanction, rather than to mean a total. It is impossible to calculate such a total, and trying to do so would lead to the Department handing out inaccurate information.
	It must be noted that the original response clearly set out the reasons why that is the case. Let me run through them. First, the data provided were for the maximum amount that claimants would have received, and should not be interpreted as absolute. In fact, we made it clear that the figures were “overestimates”.
	Secondly, the data could not take into account claimants who had left benefits during a sanction, such as those who might have moved off benefits and gone into a job or education, or moved on to another benefit. As we know, employment is now at record levels—up nearly 600,000 over the past year—so many people are moving off benefits and going into work. The rate at which people are doing so is now faster: nearly 80% of them have moved off benefits within six months.
	Thirdly, the calculation does not net the figures for hardship payments. It is not possible to take into account the hardship payments that would have been received, which puts up to 80% of the benefits back into payment.
	Fourthly, the amount of benefits withheld is not readily available for JSA-varied sanctions. During the period covered in the parliamentary question—2009 to 2012—the sanctions system changed, which resulted in more fixed level sanctions so that claimants could be clearer about the consequences of not meeting the requirements designed to help them into work.
	It was therefore clear that the information handed out was not right, and that such a total could not be provided. That came to light when follow-up questions were asked, including in the other place. We do not routinely collect information of benefits withheld because of a sanction that has been imposed, or of benefits that would have been claimed had someone not lost their entitlement. We therefore cannot produce the figures
	without making a number of assumptions and judgments about people’s behaviour, and any resulting figures would be very misleading.

Stephen Timms: All I am really asking for is an update of the table provided on 25 March 2013. I take the point that such a table would need a caveat attached to it and that people would need to be told that it is not what it might at first appear to be, but if we just had an updated version, the House would be happy.

Esther McVey: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says, but if we want the Department to provide robust and reliable information which is not misleading, then such an update cannot be given. He says that he just wants a good answer, but such an answer would not be a good one. Surely nobody would want information to be given out to people who might be misled. As we know, all those caveats are seldom, if ever, applied, and such information would be incorrect. After the further questions, and having examined what was first handed out, the Department decided that the information provided was wrong, inaccurate and misleading.
	The answer stated that it was important to focus on why there is a sanctions system. It is about making sure that people understand what is required of them, making sure that decisions are timely and correct, and protecting the most vulnerable. Fundamentally, sanctions cannot be seen in isolation. They are part of a broader system of support that includes financial support, training in employment skills and getting people into work. Because of that extra training and support, and because of the claimant commitment that we have introduced to make the system tailor-made for the individual, so that they know what sanction they would get and, at the same time, what support they would get, we have seen record-breaking results in getting people into work, the biggest fall in youth unemployment since records began, the biggest fall in long-term unemployment since 1998 and record rates of women getting into work. All that is part of a system. What we were aiming to do, and what we have done, is to get nearly 2 million extra people into work.

Stephen Timms: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me whether it is in order for the Minister to say that she is not going to answer a question because she thinks that the answer would be misleading? Surely it is for Members of the House to determine what information they want and for Ministers to provide that information.

Lindsay Hoyle: The responsibility to answer a question lies with the Minister. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has been tenacious in holding the Minister to account. That is the role of Members: to hold Ministers and Departments to account. I am sure that that will continue if he does not get the answer today.

Esther McVey: I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is why we are having this debate today. It is not me who is—

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, what the Minister has said is that an answer that was given to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) two years ago—

Stephen Timms: A year and a half ago.

John McDonnell: An answer that was given a year and a half ago was misleading. If that is the case, would it not have been appropriate for the Minister who gave that misleading answer to come to the House at the first opportunity, as is the convention, to correct the information? As far as I am aware, there has been no correction whatever. I ask you to take this matter up, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a point of procedure with the relevant Department.

Lindsay Hoyle: What we need to do is to get to the end of the debate. The point is well made and it has been taken on board.

Esther McVey: I do not have my glasses on at the moment. It is John McDonnell on the Opposition Benches, is it not? [Interruption.] It is. I thought that perhaps the hon. Gentleman was standing up to pass comment on something else, now that it is Christmas—the time when people should be able to stand up and apologise—or, as he said he would in front of the House, to invite me for a cup of tea—

John McDonnell: Will the Minister give way?

Esther McVey: Hang on a second. Let me finish what I am saying. For what he was reported to have either said or repeated, I say for every woman I know who has been affected by violence; for every woman I know who has actually lived by violence, I believe that what—

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. [Interruption.] Order, everybody! Let us have a little bit of Christmas spirit. The Minister must give way when there is a point of order.

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Allegations have been made here that have been responded to previously. If the right hon. Lady is raising matters in relation to me, I am quite happy to respond to them if she gives way.

Lindsay Hoyle: We are not going to get into that. It is Christmas, and this is the final debate before the recess, so we ought to take on board where we are and be careful about the comments that are made.

Esther McVey: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman said that he would make a phone call to speak to me about this matter, I await the phone call—

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If you check the record, you will see that a point of order was raised by another Member, not the Minister, and I offered that Member the opportunity to come for a cup of tea with me on the advice of Madam Deputy Speaker. I offered no phone calls to the Minister, whom I would not wish to meet and who was awarded the Scrooge of the year award in her own constituency last week.

Lindsay Hoyle: I do not want this debate to deteriorate any further. It is an important debate, and I want us to stick to the facts. I do not want any more personal attacks on either side of the Chamber. I want to move forward.

Esther McVey: As I said to the right hon. Member for East Ham, the point is not whether I was withholding the information. The Department looked at the information that had been handed out and felt that it was not robust. It was not comfortable handing it out because it
	was neither reliable nor accurate, and that was why the subsequent answers were given in a series of letters and parliamentary answers. I have given the exact reply that has been deemed correct, because we obviously want the Department and the House to give out accurate information.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.